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

[wirebender]

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.

Rocks, if your equation is built upon the radius of the earth, why does it present incoming radiation as if it were hitting a flat body with no curvature. Your equation divides incoming radiation by 4 making the surface of the earth a flat surface being irradiated by incoming radiation that is 1/4 the strength of the actual incoming radiation rather than by 2 making it a sphere that is being irradiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface.

Also, is that a derivation of Stefan-Boltzman? If so, which derivation, by whom, based on what, and where is it supported in the physics literature?

How do you expect a formula that doesn't represent the earth as it is to predict temperature with any degree of accuracy? Also, if you apply that formula to any other body in our solar system, the result doesn't even come close to the known reality. It is an ad hoc formula put together to reach a pre determined quantity.

Don't worry rocks, I don't expect you to actually answer my question as we both know that you don't have the slightest understanding of what you posted. If you did, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

 

[gslack]

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.

Ah and that puts me about 2 and a half wits ahead of you...

Socks you just cut and pasted someone else's equation... An equation that seems to consider the earth a flat surface black body. Not a spherical planetary body emitting some of its own heat and generating its own electro-magnetic field. And you didn't know who or what I was talking about when I mentioned Fourier did you... LOL

You are ridiculous man..

 

[IanC]

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...

once again you put up non sequiturs as 'proof' that I am wrong. waves in a medium like water, oil or air have interference patterns, did you think I was denying that? electrons shot in particle form like a machine gun can show wave like properties in double slit experiments, did you think I was denying that? Einstein said Prince whatshisname had looked up Mother Nature's nightie when he produced evidence of duality in electrons.

waves in water cant superimpose on light waves even if they are the same wavelength, they are fundementally different things.

electrons do show duality and like many things on the nuclear scale are best thought of as probabilities rather than particles, until they are put to the test by measuring them when they have to decide where they want to be.

as an aside- while electrons show duality, the actual effect is orders of magnitude smaller than for photons.

 

[IanC]

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.

Rocks, if your equation is built upon the radius of the earth, why does it present incoming radiation as if it were hitting a flat body with no curvature. Your equation divides incoming radiation by 4 making the surface of the earth a flat surface being irradiated by incoming radiation that is 1/4 the strength of the actual incoming radiation rather than by 2 making it a sphere that is being irradiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface.

Also, is that a derivation of Stefan-Boltzman? If so, which derivation, by whom, based on what, and where is it supported in the physics literature?

How do you expect a formula that doesn't represent the earth as it is to predict temperature with any degree of accuracy? Also, if you apply that formula to any other body in our solar system, the result doesn't even come close to the known reality. It is an ad hoc formula put together to reach a pre determined quantity.

Don't worry rocks, I don't expect you to actually answer my question as we both know that you don't have the slightest understanding of what you posted. If you did, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

I remember reading the article about the more sophisticated method for determining the outgoing radiation of earth but I dont recall the actual calculations. what was the end result? was it a significant difference and in what direction was it?

 

[gslack]

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...

once again you put up non sequiturs as 'proof' that I am wrong. waves in a medium like water, oil or air have interference patterns, did you think I was denying that? electrons shot in particle form like a machine gun can show wave like properties in double slit experiments, did you think I was denying that? Einstein said Prince whatshisname had looked up Mother Nature's nightie when he produced evidence of duality in electrons.

waves in water cant superimpose on light waves even if they are the same wavelength, they are fundementally different things.

electrons do show duality and like many things on the nuclear scale are best thought of as probabilities rather than particles, until they are put to the test by measuring them when they have to decide where they want to be.

as an aside- while electrons show duality, the actual effect is orders of magnitude smaller than for photons.

Ian what the hell are you rambling about now?

Seriously none of that has anything at all to do with my original statement.

My statement was the scientist was studying waves in a liquid to get a better understanding of wave behavior on a microscopic an sub-atomic level. You said " you dont learn about the paradoxes of photons by studying waves in oil." Matter of fact you even told me to read a book on it. Well pal, it seems that experiments using liquid to study wave properties as a basis for wave study at a microscopic level is fundamental physics 101. Yet you (mr.physics) did not seem to know that in fact even denied its validity...

Im done being tolerant and diplomatic with your Bullshit now Ian, its tiresome and frankly fakes and phonies irritate the shit out of me. And dancing bears who like to mince words and obfuscate by lying and posturing like preening peacocks, make me ill..

You are a complete and total fraud. You have outed yourself massively here and all you can do is play your little word games and try to bury it under so much BS people stop reading.

Well dumbass, no one cares outside of you, me, and wire. Why should they? You are a douchebag fraud with a desire to cover your ignorance, so what the webs full of them. The only people outside us who seem to care is the sellout frauds from the green side so if you think their opinion of you is worth making a fool of yourself please continue.

Ya know what the most pathetic part in all of this is? You in your previous post denied the validity of studying waves in liquid in physics, only to claim at the start of the next post that you were not denying it, then denying its validity again later in that same post. And you don't even realize ya did it do ya..

Ian you are busted... Go get a new shtick, this ones done. ANY person of a level you pretend you have in the physical sciences has experienced the double-slit experiment, either by actual experience or from at least reading about it. Its one of the first ones you would discover in studying wave-particle duality. And thats not me saying it, its standard 101.

You should know this as a self-proclaimed educated physics enthusiast... Its been fun Ian, but now you are a proven bullshit artist, and all because you started to actually believe your own bullshit. Ya couldn't keep your make-believe online persona separate from reality and your ego got the best of you.

 

[IanC]

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...

Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment - YouTube

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...

once again you put up non sequiturs as 'proof' that I am wrong. waves in a medium like water, oil or air have interference patterns, did you think I was denying that? electrons shot in particle form like a machine gun can show wave like properties in double slit experiments, did you think I was denying that? Einstein said Prince whatshisname had looked up Mother Nature's nightie when he produced evidence of duality in electrons.

waves in water cant superimpose on light waves even if they are the same wavelength, they are fundementally different things.

electrons do show duality and like many things on the nuclear scale are best thought of as probabilities rather than particles, until they are put to the test by measuring them when they have to decide where they want to be.

as an aside- while electrons show duality, the actual effect is orders of magnitude smaller than for photons.

Ian what the hell are you rambling about now?

Seriously none of that has anything at all to do with my original statement.

My statement was the scientist was studying waves in a liquid to get a better understanding of wave behavior on a microscopic an sub-atomic level. You said " you dont learn about the paradoxes of photons by studying waves in oil." Matter of fact you even told me to read a book on it. Well pal, it seems that experiments using liquid to study wave properties as a basis for wave study at a microscopic level is fundamental physics 101. Yet you (mr.physics) did not seem to know that in fact even denied its validity...

Im done being tolerant and diplomatic with your Bullshit now Ian, its tiresome and frankly fakes and phonies irritate the shit out of me. And dancing bears who like to mince words and obfuscate by lying and posturing like preening peacocks, make me ill..

You are a complete and total fraud. You have outed yourself massively here and all you can do is play your little word games and try to bury it under so much BS people stop reading.

Well dumbass, no one cares outside of you, me, and wire. Why should they? You are a douchebag fraud with a desire to cover your ignorance, so what the webs full of them. The only people outside us who seem to care is the sellout frauds from the green side so if you think their opinion of you is worth making a fool of yourself please continue.

Ya know what the most pathetic part in all of this is? You in your previous post denied the validity of studying waves in liquid in physics, only to claim at the start of the next post that you were not denying it, then denying its validity again later in that same post. And you don't even realize ya did it do ya..

Ian you are busted... Go get a new shtick, this ones done. ANY person of a level you pretend you have in the physical sciences has experienced the double-slit experiment, either by actual experience or from at least reading about it. Its one of the first ones you would discover in studying wave-particle duality. And thats not me saying it, its standard 101.

You should know this as a self-proclaimed educated physics enthusiast... Its been fun Ian, but now you are a proven bullshit artist, and all because you started to actually believe your own bullshit. Ya couldn't keep your make-believe online persona separate from reality and your ego got the best of you.

you certainly use a lot of words to say very little. please be more specific. are you saying they found wave-particle duality in a mechanical wave in a liquid medium? or are you saying that they found new paradoxes for light waves using a liquid medium instead of a near vacuum. or are you just bringing up that electrons share duality quantum quirks with photons and a host of other particles at nuclear scales? when you just put up links without stating what you think the links suggest it is hard to understand your point.

 

[wirebender]

I remember reading the article about the more sophisticated method for determining the outgoing radiation of earth but I dont recall the actual calculations. what was the end result? was it a significant difference and in what direction was it?

The conclusion was that if you model the earth as a sphere being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees of its surface and account for the curvature of the side being irradiated, the temperature derived from the model is slightly warmer than observed temperatures.

From that point, it doesn't require a rocket surgeon to look at the "scattering" qualites of so called greenhouse gasses (absorption and re emission in various directions) to see the cooling effect these gasses have and the temperature suddenly makes sense. No greenhouse effect is necessary to account for the observed temperature if one models the earth as it is rather than as a flat surface being irradiated 24 hours a day by sunlight that is 1/4 the intensity of reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

And you are going to present this revelation at what Physicists convention? And you have published it in what peer reviewed scientific journal? Lordy, lordy, Bent, you just keep digging the hole deeper.

 

[gslack]

once again you put up non sequiturs as 'proof' that I am wrong. waves in a medium like water, oil or air have interference patterns, did you think I was denying that? electrons shot in particle form like a machine gun can show wave like properties in double slit experiments, did you think I was denying that? Einstein said Prince whatshisname had looked up Mother Nature's nightie when he produced evidence of duality in electrons.

waves in water cant superimpose on light waves even if they are the same wavelength, they are fundementally different things.

electrons do show duality and like many things on the nuclear scale are best thought of as probabilities rather than particles, until they are put to the test by measuring them when they have to decide where they want to be.

as an aside- while electrons show duality, the actual effect is orders of magnitude smaller than for photons.

Ian what the hell are you rambling about now?

Seriously none of that has anything at all to do with my original statement.

My statement was the scientist was studying waves in a liquid to get a better understanding of wave behavior on a microscopic an sub-atomic level. You said " you dont learn about the paradoxes of photons by studying waves in oil." Matter of fact you even told me to read a book on it. Well pal, it seems that experiments using liquid to study wave properties as a basis for wave study at a microscopic level is fundamental physics 101. Yet you (mr.physics) did not seem to know that in fact even denied its validity...

Im done being tolerant and diplomatic with your Bullshit now Ian, its tiresome and frankly fakes and phonies irritate the shit out of me. And dancing bears who like to mince words and obfuscate by lying and posturing like preening peacocks, make me ill..

You are a complete and total fraud. You have outed yourself massively here and all you can do is play your little word games and try to bury it under so much BS people stop reading.

Well dumbass, no one cares outside of you, me, and wire. Why should they? You are a douchebag fraud with a desire to cover your ignorance, so what the webs full of them. The only people outside us who seem to care is the sellout frauds from the green side so if you think their opinion of you is worth making a fool of yourself please continue.

Ya know what the most pathetic part in all of this is? You in your previous post denied the validity of studying waves in liquid in physics, only to claim at the start of the next post that you were not denying it, then denying its validity again later in that same post. And you don't even realize ya did it do ya..

Ian you are busted... Go get a new shtick, this ones done. ANY person of a level you pretend you have in the physical sciences has experienced the double-slit experiment, either by actual experience or from at least reading about it. Its one of the first ones you would discover in studying wave-particle duality. And thats not me saying it, its standard 101.

You should know this as a self-proclaimed educated physics enthusiast... Its been fun Ian, but now you are a proven bullshit artist, and all because you started to actually believe your own bullshit. Ya couldn't keep your make-believe online persona separate from reality and your ego got the best of you.

you certainly use a lot of words to say very little. please be more specific. are you saying they found wave-particle duality in a mechanical wave in a liquid medium? or are you saying that they found new paradoxes for light waves using a liquid medium instead of a near vacuum. or are you just bringing up that electrons share duality quantum quirks with photons and a host of other particles at nuclear scales? when you just put up links without stating what you think the links suggest it is hard to understand your point.

No what I am saying is you are an obvious fake, a phony, and internet fraud playing expert at something he knows nothing about. Need to hear it another way?

Ian, you are a bullshit slinging, posturing buffoon with delusions of brilliance you not only do not have, but do not even take the time to learn enough to pull it off.

Is that clear enough for you?

Now you can play as many word games or google up terms till your fingers bleed, it won't change the fact you have been shown for a fake here in front of the entire forum.

Using liquid to study wave behavior is a standard experiment in physics, that is a fact. YOU did not know this and said as much. ANY person with the level of knowledge you claim to have of physics would know this experiment all too well. YOU DID NOT and even tried to imply I was ignorant for making the point in my post..

So ian are you 50 or 5? When are you going to act like an adult? Its been like arguing with a pre-teen for at least a week now. You don't address points you make up your own versions of them and talk shit. how much longer are we going to have to tolerate the 'i know you are but what am I" defense from you? Its not bothering me slapping you around takes no effort at all, but its making an ever bigger fool of you..

 

[gslack]

And you are going to present this revelation at what Physicists convention? And you have published it in what peer reviewed scientific journal? Lordy, lordy, Bent, you just keep digging the hole deeper.

socks stop pretending you understand any of this.. seriously you cut and paste and don't even read that fully. You trying to play overseer and judge on this is just silly.

 

[wirebender]

And you are going to present this revelation at what Physicists convention? And you have published it in what peer reviewed scientific journal? Lordy, lordy, Bent, you just keep digging the hole deeper.

Poor rocks. How sad it must be to be completely unable to grasp the topic and be a slave to whoever happens to fit your political leanings.

I asked you some questions about the formulae you posted. Are you going to answer them? Is even algebra over your head? Why post things you don't even begin to grasp as if you do when you have to know that you might be asked a question or two? Or are you unable to even think that far ahead?

 

[IanC]

Ian what the hell are you rambling about now?

Seriously none of that has anything at all to do with my original statement.

My statement was the scientist was studying waves in a liquid to get a better understanding of wave behavior on a microscopic an sub-atomic level. You said " you dont learn about the paradoxes of photons by studying waves in oil." Matter of fact you even told me to read a book on it. Well pal, it seems that experiments using liquid to study wave properties as a basis for wave study at a microscopic level is fundamental physics 101. Yet you (mr.physics) did not seem to know that in fact even denied its validity...

Im done being tolerant and diplomatic with your Bullshit now Ian, its tiresome and frankly fakes and phonies irritate the shit out of me. And dancing bears who like to mince words and obfuscate by lying and posturing like preening peacocks, make me ill..

You are a complete and total fraud. You have outed yourself massively here and all you can do is play your little word games and try to bury it under so much BS people stop reading.

Well dumbass, no one cares outside of you, me, and wire. Why should they? You are a douchebag fraud with a desire to cover your ignorance, so what the webs full of them. The only people outside us who seem to care is the sellout frauds from the green side so if you think their opinion of you is worth making a fool of yourself please continue.

Ya know what the most pathetic part in all of this is? You in your previous post denied the validity of studying waves in liquid in physics, only to claim at the start of the next post that you were not denying it, then denying its validity again later in that same post. And you don't even realize ya did it do ya..

Ian you are busted... Go get a new shtick, this ones done. ANY person of a level you pretend you have in the physical sciences has experienced the double-slit experiment, either by actual experience or from at least reading about it. Its one of the first ones you would discover in studying wave-particle duality. And thats not me saying it, its standard 101.

You should know this as a self-proclaimed educated physics enthusiast... Its been fun Ian, but now you are a proven bullshit artist, and all because you started to actually believe your own bullshit. Ya couldn't keep your make-believe online persona separate from reality and your ego got the best of you.

you certainly use a lot of words to say very little. please be more specific. are you saying they found wave-particle duality in a mechanical wave in a liquid medium? or are you saying that they found new paradoxes for light waves using a liquid medium instead of a near vacuum. or are you just bringing up that electrons share duality quantum quirks with photons and a host of other particles at nuclear scales? when you just put up links without stating what you think the links suggest it is hard to understand your point.

No what I am saying is you are an obvious fake, a phony, and internet fraud playing expert at something he knows nothing about. Need to hear it another way?

Ian, you are a bullshit slinging, posturing buffoon with delusions of brilliance you not only do not have, but do not even take the time to learn enough to pull it off.

Is that clear enough for you?

Now you can play as many word games or google up terms till your fingers bleed, it won't change the fact you have been shown for a fake here in front of the entire forum.

Using liquid to study wave behavior is a standard experiment in physics, that is a fact. YOU did not know this and said as much. ANY person with the level of knowledge you claim to have of physics would know this experiment all too well. YOU DID NOT and even tried to imply I was ignorant for making the point in my post..

So ian are you 50 or 5? When are you going to act like an adult? Its been like arguing with a pre-teen for at least a week now. You don't address points you make up your own versions of them and talk shit. how much longer are we going to have to tolerate the 'i know you are but what am I" defense from you? Its not bothering me slapping you around takes no effort at all, but its making an ever bigger fool of you..

gslack- all you do is 'try to score points'. you swing back and forth between linking to either simplistic generalities or obscure anomalies, never actually trying to reason out the topic that is being discussed. mechanical waves in a liquid have only superficial similarities to light waves that need no outside medium to propagate. I suppose if you found some evidence of wave-particle duality in mechanical waves that would be relavent but I believe your links were about microwaves, solid state lasers and a youtube primer on the two slit electron experiment.

the topic was and is wirebender's belief that photons of light collide and annihilate each other, apparently without the need of matter to be present. I say that premise goes against two facts of physics that I learned years ago. (1) photons only change in the presence of matter, and (2) photons can add or subtract their waveforms going through a specific point but they then continue on their path as if nothing happened. so far both of you have studiously ignored those two basic points, instead focussing on general definitions of terms that are not germaine to the specific topic or bringing up bizarre anomalies that have even less to do with the basic topic at hand.

 

[wirebender]

the topic was and is wirebender's belief that photons of light collide and annihilate each other, apparently without the need of matter to be present. I say that premise goes against two facts of physics that I learned years ago. (1) photons only change in the presence of matter, and (2) photons can add or subtract their waveforms going through a specific point but they then continue on their path as if nothing happened. so far both of you have studiously ignored those two basic points, instead focussing on general definitions of terms that are not germaine to the specific topic or bringing up bizarre anomalies that have even less to do with the basic topic at hand.

Why excactly do you find it necessary to distort and mischaracterize my statements?

How about you answer one question in a straight forward, non greasy mannier if you can.

Do you deny that opposing EM fields can interefere with, distort, and cancel each other out?

By the way Ian, the atmosphere itself is matter. Everywhere you look is matter. You are caught up on one detail that requires a matterless vacuum to be true and applying it to the atmosphere.

 

[gslack]

you certainly use a lot of words to say very little. please be more specific. are you saying they found wave-particle duality in a mechanical wave in a liquid medium? or are you saying that they found new paradoxes for light waves using a liquid medium instead of a near vacuum. or are you just bringing up that electrons share duality quantum quirks with photons and a host of other particles at nuclear scales? when you just put up links without stating what you think the links suggest it is hard to understand your point.

No what I am saying is you are an obvious fake, a phony, and internet fraud playing expert at something he knows nothing about. Need to hear it another way?

Ian, you are a bullshit slinging, posturing buffoon with delusions of brilliance you not only do not have, but do not even take the time to learn enough to pull it off.

Is that clear enough for you?

Now you can play as many word games or google up terms till your fingers bleed, it won't change the fact you have been shown for a fake here in front of the entire forum.

Using liquid to study wave behavior is a standard experiment in physics, that is a fact. YOU did not know this and said as much. ANY person with the level of knowledge you claim to have of physics would know this experiment all too well. YOU DID NOT and even tried to imply I was ignorant for making the point in my post..

So ian are you 50 or 5? When are you going to act like an adult? Its been like arguing with a pre-teen for at least a week now. You don't address points you make up your own versions of them and talk shit. how much longer are we going to have to tolerate the 'i know you are but what am I" defense from you? Its not bothering me slapping you around takes no effort at all, but its making an ever bigger fool of you..

gslack- all you do is 'try to score points'. you swing back and forth between linking to either simplistic generalities or obscure anomalies, never actually trying to reason out the topic that is being discussed. mechanical waves in a liquid have only superficial similarities to light waves that need no outside medium to propagate. I suppose if you found some evidence of wave-particle duality in mechanical waves that would be relavent but I believe your links were about microwaves, solid state lasers and a youtube primer on the two slit electron experiment.

the topic was and is wirebender's belief that photons of light collide and annihilate each other, apparently without the need of matter to be present. I say that premise goes against two facts of physics that I learned years ago. (1) photons only change in the presence of matter, and (2) photons can add or subtract their waveforms going through a specific point but they then continue on their path as if nothing happened. so far both of you have studiously ignored those two basic points, instead focussing on general definitions of terms that are not germaine to the specific topic or bringing up bizarre anomalies that have even less to do with the basic topic at hand.

Ian how pathetic are you going to get? Seriously you waited 3 days to come back make this kind of lame accusation or whatever it is this time?

You had 3 days and all you could come up with was to try and twist what wirebender said? Really thats the best you could do with 3 days to work on it??

Well here lets pick it apart shall we? I will only address what applies to me, your contentions on what wirebender said or meant or whatever, are best handled by him.

You said above...

"gslack- all you do is 'try to score points'. you swing back and forth between linking to either simplistic generalities or obscure anomalies, never actually trying to reason out the topic that is being discussed"

Really? I bring specific definitions, specific experiments, and specific points and you dismiss them all as garbage without a single shred of anything to back you but your pretense that you just know these things... Unbelievable! Exactly what evidence have you brought to this discussion? What exactly have you done here but nay-say? You have googled terms you do not understand and tried to use them to cover your lack of understanding. At every turn you have shown you know nothing of this beyond access to a thesaurus and a desire to appear like you know.

You said...

"mechanical waves in a liquid have only superficial similarities to light waves that need no outside medium to propagate."

Ian, the waves in the liquid are a standard physics experiment. I showed you this over and again. Your denial of this being the case and a standard early early experiment in physical science is a prime example of just how much of this you actually know something about versus how much of it you think you know or at least want others to believe you know. If you really knew what you claim to know on this subject you would have known about this and would not have tried to deny it as a valuable research tool in physics and quantum mechanics...

Further the fact you continue this pretense rather than conceding it is a valued experiment despite all the evidence to the contrary, only furthers my assertions that you are not about science but rather saving face. Get over it Ian, this persona is outed now. Get a new one, or keep this one and pretend you are a zoologist or something else because this one is no physicist, he's not even a very good bullshitter anymore.

Dude you don't even know the experiment. Ya didn't even bother to read any of the stuff or study on it at all. What the hell did that last part mean anyway? Were you claiming light waves or particles (duality) come from nowhere? Get a grip.. You are talking nonsensical gibberish to save your online character, gimme a break dude no one cares that you aren't a physicist but you. I only care that you tried to harass anybody who dared to show any knowledge and defend their position against you nay-saying. And calling me a liar and lying about my links, what I said, what I meant, what used for evidence, and about my character and spent days harassing me. Trust me Ian you are not going to pull the fake physicist game on me, I am way to analytical for it....

You said...

"I suppose if you found some evidence of wave-particle duality in mechanical waves that would be relavent but I believe your links were about microwaves, solid state lasers and a youtube primer on the two slit electron experiment."

Now see there ya go lying about things again... I gave you a link to guy using microwaves to study wave-particle duality, to show there was more to this the field than just your tiny view, I also gave you written references and examples of scientists using liquid in two-slit experiments, and a video showing two very popular two-slit experiment forms. One with balls and a gun firing through two standing walls with slits in them, and one with a single and double slit in liquid and studying the behavior of the waves through them. These are standard physics 101 experiments that you denied having any relevance to this at all. yet despite you not accepting their relevance these experiments have been around some years and still practiced today.

ANY physical science first year would know these experiments Ian. yet you didn't and even had the audacity to deem them irrelevant. Why because you didn't know them they aren't true? Kind of like you been telling wirebender all this time? You didn't know it so he must be making it up... yeah we get it Ian, all too well....

You have been an exasperating, nay-saying, posturing, buffoon with delusions of omniscience and an over-blown image of your own intellect, and the ego to go with it. Now get over it already. You are a fake, we all know it.

 

[IanC]

the topic was and is wirebender's belief that photons of light collide and annihilate each other, apparently without the need of matter to be present. I say that premise goes against two facts of physics that I learned years ago. (1) photons only change in the presence of matter, and (2) photons can add or subtract their waveforms going through a specific point but they then continue on their path as if nothing happened. so far both of you have studiously ignored those two basic points, instead focussing on general definitions of terms that are not germaine to the specific topic or bringing up bizarre anomalies that have even less to do with the basic topic at hand.

Why excactly do you find it necessary to distort and mischaracterize my statements?

How about you answer one question in a straight forward, non greasy mannier if you can.

Do you deny that opposing EM fields can interefere with, distort, and cancel each other out?

By the way Ian, the atmosphere itself is matter. Everywhere you look is matter. You are caught up on one detail that requires a matterless vacuum to be true and applying it to the atmosphere.

just which 'fields' are you talking about? the earth's magnetic/electric field? yes that field can interact with other magnetic/electric fields. but the radiation emitted by the earth's heat is not an interactive field. the IR radiation is complete, the photons are real, there are no field strength lines.

I am OK with treating the atmosphere as matter. the same question you dodged before is still pertinent. where do the photons 'cancel out'? you already said that the CO2 molecules dont interact with the 'EM field'. so why dont you describe what is happening and where?

a thought experiment. a laser pointed at a perfect mirror. do the photons cancel out or does the intensity of the photons just build up until the mirror or the laser gets disrupted?

 

[gslack]

the topic was and is wirebender's belief that photons of light collide and annihilate each other, apparently without the need of matter to be present. I say that premise goes against two facts of physics that I learned years ago. (1) photons only change in the presence of matter, and (2) photons can add or subtract their waveforms going through a specific point but they then continue on their path as if nothing happened. so far both of you have studiously ignored those two basic points, instead focussing on general definitions of terms that are not germaine to the specific topic or bringing up bizarre anomalies that have even less to do with the basic topic at hand.

Why excactly do you find it necessary to distort and mischaracterize my statements?

How about you answer one question in a straight forward, non greasy mannier if you can.

Do you deny that opposing EM fields can interefere with, distort, and cancel each other out?

By the way Ian, the atmosphere itself is matter. Everywhere you look is matter. You are caught up on one detail that requires a matterless vacuum to be true and applying it to the atmosphere.

just which 'fields' are you talking about? the earth's magnetic/electric field? yes that field can interact with other magnetic/electric fields. but the radiation emitted by the earth's heat is not an interactive field. the IR radiation is complete, the photons are real, there are no field strength lines.

I am OK with treating the atmosphere as matter. the same question you dodged before is still pertinent. where do the photons 'cancel out'? you already said that the CO2 molecules dont interact with the 'EM field'. so why dont you describe what is happening and where?

a thought experiment. a laser pointed at a perfect mirror. do the photons cancel out or does the intensity of the photons just build up until the mirror or the laser gets disrupted?

DUDE!!! its electro-magnetic field... So you can say the earths heat is not interactive? How? its funny but radiative heat is now suddenly not heat or what? You must be on a binge...

And the atmosphere is matter.. Damn man are you high? A gas is matter, a liquid is matter, a solid is matter. All of them are matter just in different states. You can be as okay as you want to be "treating the atmosphere as matter" because IT IS MATTER!!!

Mr. Physics.... Oh my god man...

 

[IanC]

Why excactly do you find it necessary to distort and mischaracterize my statements?

How about you answer one question in a straight forward, non greasy mannier if you can.

Do you deny that opposing EM fields can interefere with, distort, and cancel each other out?

By the way Ian, the atmosphere itself is matter. Everywhere you look is matter. You are caught up on one detail that requires a matterless vacuum to be true and applying it to the atmosphere.

just which 'fields' are you talking about? the earth's magnetic/electric field? yes that field can interact with other magnetic/electric fields. but the radiation emitted by the earth's heat is not an interactive field. the IR radiation is complete, the photons are real, there are no field strength lines.

I am OK with treating the atmosphere as matter. the same question you dodged before is still pertinent. where do the photons 'cancel out'? you already said that the CO2 molecules dont interact with the 'EM field'. so why dont you describe what is happening and where?

a thought experiment. a laser pointed at a perfect mirror. do the photons cancel out or does the intensity of the photons just build up until the mirror or the laser gets disrupted?

DUDE!!! its electro-magnetic field... So you can say the earths heat is not interactive? How? its funny but radiative heat is now suddenly not heat or what? You must be on a binge...

And the atmosphere is matter.. Damn man are you high? A gas is matter, a liquid is matter, a solid is matter. All of them are matter just in different states. You can be as okay as you want to be "treating the atmosphere as matter" because IT IS MATTER!!!

Mr. Physics.... Oh my god man...

is this the field you guys are talking about? it only interacts with charged particles and other magnetic or electric fields.

would you care to link up a site that talks about actual photons extinguishing them selves against each other? or an electric or magnetic field that does anything but slightly polarize incoming light (when in the presence of matter)?

I dont know why I respond to you. you have no actual position based on knowledge to argue with. at least wirebender is arguing from (confused) knowledge and there is hope that he will see his mistake sooner or later. all of us can make a mistake sometimes. but you dont have a clue and argue just to insult people.

radiation, heat and temperature all have different meanings.

 

[wirebender]

just which 'fields' are you talking about? the earth's magnetic/electric field? yes that field can interact with other magnetic/electric fields. but the radiation emitted by the earth's heat is not an interactive field. the IR radiation is complete, the photons are real, there are no field strength lines.

Where do you get this drivel Ian. IR constitutes an EM field; so do radio waves, microwaves, visible light, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. They all constitute EM fields.

electromagnetic radiation 
noun Physics .
radiation consisting of electromagnetic waves, including radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays.

I am OK with treating the atmosphere as matter. the same question you dodged before is still pertinent. where do the photons 'cancel out'?

I have already told you half a dozen times and done the math, in public, on the board Ian. I doubt that telling you again is going to matter. Till you grasp the concept of wave - particle duality and fully understand that phenomena like destructive interference only make sense when the EM field is thought of in terms of waves rather than particles, you are going to be wrong. There is no way around it. You are stuck on photons being free agents zipping about the universe and that simply is not true. If it were, then wave - particle duality would not be a subject of study. You are stuck inside a little box and till you figure a way to wrap your mind around the topic rather than being imprisoned by it, you are just stuck. I have explained it in every way that I can think of and I believe it isn't that you can't get it but that you won't get it because to understand is to admit that you were mistaken and for some reason, you don't seem to be willing to face that possibility.

you already said that the CO2 molecules dont interact with the 'EM field'. so why dont you describe what is happening and where?

Because Ian, (and I am embarassed for you in that I even have to answer the question) the CO2 molecule is not part of the EM field. The photon it emits is the EM field emitted by the CO2 molecule. The EM field it emits (1 photon, sometimes) is the extent of its EM field and it is your claim that that EM field emitted by a single CO2 molecule consisting of one photon can "overcome" the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth and send that single photon upstream against that massive EM field radiated by the earth and actually reach the earth where it is absorbed. Really?

a thought experiment. a laser pointed at a perfect mirror. do the photons cancel out or does the intensity of the photons just build up until the mirror or the laser gets disrupted?

No such thing as a perfect mirror. In any event, the photons reflecting off the mirror do not re enter the source to be reabsorbed. See the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.

 

[gslack]

just which 'fields' are you talking about? the earth's magnetic/electric field? yes that field can interact with other magnetic/electric fields. but the radiation emitted by the earth's heat is not an interactive field. the IR radiation is complete, the photons are real, there are no field strength lines.

I am OK with treating the atmosphere as matter. the same question you dodged before is still pertinent. where do the photons 'cancel out'? you already said that the CO2 molecules dont interact with the 'EM field'. so why dont you describe what is happening and where?

a thought experiment. a laser pointed at a perfect mirror. do the photons cancel out or does the intensity of the photons just build up until the mirror or the laser gets disrupted?

DUDE!!! its electro-magnetic field... So you can say the earths heat is not interactive? How? its funny but radiative heat is now suddenly not heat or what? You must be on a binge...

And the atmosphere is matter.. Damn man are you high? A gas is matter, a liquid is matter, a solid is matter. All of them are matter just in different states. You can be as okay as you want to be "treating the atmosphere as matter" because IT IS MATTER!!!

Mr. Physics.... Oh my god man...

is this the field you guys are talking about? it only interacts with charged particles and other magnetic or electric fields.

would you care to link up a site that talks about actual photons extinguishing them selves against each other? or an electric or magnetic field that does anything but slightly polarize incoming light (when in the presence of matter)?

I dont know why I respond to you. you have no actual position based on knowledge to argue with. at least wirebender is arguing from (confused) knowledge and there is hope that he will see his mistake sooner or later. all of us can make a mistake sometimes. but you dont have a clue and argue just to insult people.

radiation, heat and temperature all have different meanings.

Ian you just sat there in your last post saying the most uneducated and utterly ignorant things I have heard since konradv..lets review shall we?

You said:

"just which 'fields' are you talking about? the earth's magnetic/electric field? yes that field can interact with other magnetic/electric fields. but the radiation emitted by the earth's heat is not an interactive field. the IR radiation is complete, the photons are real, there are no field strength lines."

WOW IAN!... Seriously?? Its called an electro-magnetic field. Jesus dude, you cannot tell me a person of your claimed knowledge in this would not know this term. hell man we been using it all along. An Electro-Magnetic Field or EM Field get it? Damn man.. And as far as the rest of it, its illogical gibberish.

Ian this will be my last attempt to be reasonable and logical with you. You respond with more gibberish, or mince my words or twist what I am saying again, and you will get the kornholev treatment from me here on out.

The heat radiated from the earth is still heat. The fact is calling the earth a black body in spite of this heat generation is misleading in terms of total heat. Black body as in light emitting. The earth does not emit its own light, it does however give off heat. Its core is still molten and this creates warmth and the fact the core is made up of predominately iron, and given its molten state creates movement, this creates an electro-magnetic field that encases the planet and its atmosphere. The use of the term "black body" in instances where the planet has its own heat source is misleading.

In your ignorance you keep mixing the concepts here. You mix light with heat, and or dismiss either one as it suits your argument. A photon is a quantum of an EM field. be it from the sun directly or from anything else, its still a photon. it has the properties of BOTH a wave and a particle. You do not seem to understand this concept at all.

Ian there are two separate things here that you seem to arbitrarily call one and the same. There is light, and there is heat. heat can come from a source like the sun where light and heat is emitted from a nuclear reaction or heat can be from a transference of energy from two forces interacting like what happens here on earth. There are other forms and examples but these two suffice for our conversation.

The point here being, how much heat do we receive from the sun directly as a heat source, how much heat do we already create from out core and eco-system, and how much heat is generated by the interactions of light hitting our planet and atmosphere. Do these often conflicting heat sources effect the total heat on our planet and how much for each?

I ask you Ian why don't we use heat lamps to warm a house in winter? Because it's not a very efficient way to heat a house. And why is that? Because it produces more or as much light as it does heat and we don't want or need that much light in a house 24/7. So we use other heat sources that create more heat than light like a furnace burning a fuel or an electric current through a metal which also produces more heat than light.

Heat one aspect, light another aspect. Got it yet? You seem to function on some very twisted ideas about photons, light, heat and wave-particle duality that you could not have gotten in any real physical sciences study. fact is you have shown that you do not recognize any standard concepts. You certainly do not understand the concepts of a photon, or the EM fields they comprise. And your own statement about I may have been able to show wave-particle duality, shows clearly you think its some form intangible or esoteric thing. Dude its physics 101...

How could you NOT know the double-slit experiment? I mean really...

Edit: Can't believe I didn't see this right away... Ian you said...."is this the field you guys are talking about? it only interacts with charged particles and other magnetic or electric fields."

Really Ian? but haven't you spent several days and innumerable posts claiming that it doesn't interact with other EM Fields? You said many things to this effect many many times. Why you even argue against this concept later on in that very same post...

"..or an electric or magnetic field that does anything but slightly polarize incoming light (when in the presence of matter)?"

WTH??? Dude you seriously just said one thing and then another about the same thing... If there was any doubt that you are pulling things out of your butt and googling terms to give yourself some false air of knowledge, that right there just cured it..

You start off saying em fields can't interact with one another, then change it to they cant interact with out the presence of matter, then it went they do interact with other EM fields, only now be they only slightly polarize light.. Which is it Ian? Do you even know? I am tired of your silly, ignorant and childish pretense here. You know squat about this Ian, its plain as day and whats worse you are showing just how utterly full of your make-believe world you are... Wow man..I have no words that can cover the depth of your nonsense..

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Ol' Bent fantasizing new physical laws, and the most ignorant person on this board creating the hallalueh chorus.