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

[gslack]

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

And you understand nothing of any of it...

 

[wirebender]

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

Tell me rocks, what new physical law do you think I am inventing? How does anything I have said violate any physical law?

Easy questions rocks, or they should be since you just claimed to understand the conversation. You made a claim, now elaborate and define exactly what you are claiming or don't, and prove yourself to be the ignoramus that we allready know you to be.

 

[IanC]

wirebender doesnt so much invent new laws, he just applies them in the wrong situations and makes conclusions that are incorrect.

bummer that the gif doesnt work. http://www.kettering.edu/physics/drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html third illustration

first off, photons do not annihilate each other. they can add and subtract their waveforms depending on where you are measuring but once they pass each other they revert to exactly as they were.

secondly, wirebender confuses the meaning of the term 'field'. a light bulb (or star or CO2 molecule) radiating real photons in every direction is fundementally different than a magnetic/electric field that has no specific shape and uses virtual photons to possibly carry force if it encounters a charged particle that it can interact with. a concrete example is a power line. it is surrounded by a field but there is no necessary energy flow away. but if you put an induction circuit in the field you can steal part of the power flowing through the wire. the field and its vitual photons are always there but nothing happens unless you interact with the field and the photons become real by actually transfering energy. wirebender has confused this type of field with the radiation of IR from the earth that is already complete and needs no further interaction.

gslack's last comment is so retarded that needed level of remedial instruction would be overwhelmingly boring. eg-

The earth does not emit its own light, it does however give off heat

where do you even start?

 

[IanC]

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?

still ducking,eh? you even admitted that you know where your 'math' is located. you wrote it once and have dared people to check it probably 50 times but you are unwilling to produce it. sounds just llike a climate science 'trick' to hide bullshit out of reach.

photons, once created, continue in a straight line until they interact with matter. where does the CO2 photon 'disappear?

 

[wirebender]

wirebender doesnt so much invent new laws, he just applies them in the wrong situations and makes conclusions that are incorrect.[/qipte]

And yet, you remain unable to describe how I have misapplied any physical law at all.

secondly, wirebender confuses the meaning of the term 'field'. a light bulb (or star or CO2 molecule) radiating real photons in every direction is fundementally different than a magnetic/electric field that has no specific shape and uses virtual photons to possibly carry force if it encounters a charged particle that it can interact with. a concrete example is a power line.

So now you are denying the existence of vectors as associated by EM fields and also denying the existence of a direction of propagation? You have already indicated your belief that energy can flow in two directions along any given vector so I won't even go there again, but now you seem to be denying the existence of vectors altogether. Interesting, which physics text led you to believe this?

 

[wirebender]

still ducking,eh? you even admitted that you know where your 'math' is located. you wrote it once and have dared people to check it probably 50 times but you are unwilling to produce it. sounds just llike a climate science 'trick' to hide bullshit out of reach.[/qipte]

I am not going to do your search for you Ian. I went back, read the conversation, and you were right there in the middle of it and had no comment at all regarding either the math or the physical laws being discussed. Nothing you have said since leads me to believe that you would have any comment now. You want it, go back and find it.

photons, once created, continue in a straight line until they interact with matter. where does the CO2 photon 'disappear?

Photons are quanta of EM fields. When a field is reduced in magnitude, it is because it has lost energy. If the smallest measurable bit of energy that the field is made of is the photon, then clearly, Ian, the field is losing photons. See wave particle duality. See destructive interference. See wave cancelation. You are wrong and your stubborn resistance to being wrong has pegged you at zero on my respect o meter, never mind that you have sunk so low that you are now snuggling up to rocks for your sugar. F'ing pathetic Ian.

 

[gslack]

wirebender doesnt so much invent new laws, he just applies them in the wrong situations and makes conclusions that are incorrect.

bummer that the gif doesnt work. Superposition of Waves third illustration

first off, photons do not annihilate each other. they can add and subtract their waveforms depending on where you are measuring but once they pass each other they revert to exactly as they were.

secondly, wirebender confuses the meaning of the term 'field'. a light bulb (or star or CO2 molecule) radiating real photons in every direction is fundementally different than a magnetic/electric field that has no specific shape and uses virtual photons to possibly carry force if it encounters a charged particle that it can interact with. a concrete example is a power line. it is surrounded by a field but there is no necessary energy flow away. but if you put an induction circuit in the field you can steal part of the power flowing through the wire. the field and its vitual photons are always there but nothing happens unless you interact with the field and the photons become real by actually transfering energy. wirebender has confused this type of field with the radiation of IR from the earth that is already complete and needs no further interaction.

gslack's last comment is so retarded that needed level of remedial instruction would be overwhelmingly boring. eg-

The earth does not emit its own light, it does however give off heat

where do you even start?

Yes where do you even start?

Seriously fake, why not start? You claiming the earth is a light source now? Or that it doesn't produce it own heat? Which is it?

I can see why you didn't quote the post and respond to it directly, I mean you really don't respond to anything directly all you do is twist words and play games.

Ian for the last damn time.. Its an Electro-magnetic field.. Light is EM radiation... jesus stop being an idiot...

 

[IanC]

still ducking,eh? you even admitted that you know where your 'math' is located. you wrote it once and have dared people to check it probably 50 times but you are unwilling to produce it. sounds just llike a climate science 'trick' to hide bullshit out of reach.[/qipte]

I am not going to do your search for you Ian. I went back, read the conversation, and you were right there in the middle of it and had no comment at all regarding either the math or the physical laws being discussed. Nothing you have said since leads me to believe that you would have any comment now. You want it, go back and find it.

photons, once created, continue in a straight line until they interact with matter. where does the CO2 photon 'disappear?

Photons are quanta of EM fields. When a field is reduced in magnitude, it is because it has lost energy. If the smallest measurable bit of energy that the field is made of is the photon, then clearly, Ian, the field is losing photons. See wave particle duality. See destructive interference. See wave cancelation. You are wrong and your stubborn resistance to being wrong has pegged you at zero on my respect o meter, never mind that you have sunk so low that you are now snuggling up to rocks for your sugar. F'ing pathetic Ian.

unlike some people here I judge a statement or idea on its merits, not by who said it.

I seem to recall you stating that the 'EM field' of the earth populated the infinity of vectors from an infinity of points with real photons. this is patently absurd because it would take an infinite amount of energy. in a magnetic/electric field this would be possible because the photons are virtual and do not transfer any energy until they actually interact will a particle with the ability to accept the energy.

please cite a source that says photons are extiguished when in an interference pattern rather than it just being an artifact of measurement at a specific location. all physics references I have seen or been taught consider interference a local effect with the photons unchanged except for possible interaction by being measured (by matter)

 

[wirebender]

unlike some people here I judge a statement or idea on its merits, not by who said it.

Yeah, I caught that when you were in the middle of the mathematics discussion. (sarcasm)

I seem to recall you stating that the 'EM field' of the earth populated the infinity of vectors from an infinity of points with real photons.

You seem to remember whatever you want to remember whether it is reality or not. I believe I said that the EM field radiated by the earth radiates out in all possible vectors. I also remember asking you in which vectors the earth might not be radiating. I believe your response was no answer.

this is patently absurd because it would take an infinite amount of energy.

So tell me Ian, in which direction does the earth not propagate an IR EM field?

in a magnetic/electric field this would be possible because the photons are virtual and do not transfer any energy until they actually interact will a particle with the ability to accept the energy.

Again, in which direction (vector) does the earth not emit IR?

please cite a source that says photons are extiguished when in an interference pattern rather than it just being an artifact of measurement at a specific location.

Where do they go Ian? Do you imagine that the field is diminished, but the "stuff" of which the field is composed does not?

all physics references I have seen or been taught consider interference a local effect with the photons unchanged except for possible interaction by being measured (by matter)

I don't believe you have ever actually read a physics text Ian and if you did, you clearly didn't grasp any of it. You are simply to mistaken about to many things. See destructive interference, wave cancelling, wave particle duality, etc.

 

[IanC]

wirebender- please define what you mean by the earth's IR EM field. does it have the intensity to fill every available vector at the rate that would preclude any possibility of a photon from atmospheric CO2 reaching the surface of the planet at the speed of light (you can set a minimum height if you wish). once the opposing photons are created, what mechanism causes them to cease to exist and where does the energy go? why do you think there is anything other than a momentary waveform interaction before the two photons continue on their merry way as if nothing had happened?

 

[gslack]

Ian you really think you can save face by just badgering people with nonsense, or things you suddenly decide they say? Well you can't...

Ian do you recognize that a photon is a quantum of an EM Field?

Do you recognize that a quantum of something is the smallest increment or measurement of that thing?

Do you acknowledge that light coming in from the sun is Electro-Magnetic Radiation which is made up of photons?

Do you acknowledge the established concept of wave-particle duality?

Please answer each one as it is asked not twisted or altered into something you can answer. just answer those simple questions as they are for once...

 

[IanC]

do you understand that passing energy in a field is fundementally different than radiating energy away?

 

[gslack]

do you understand that passing energy in a field is fundementally different than radiating energy away?

Not gonna answer again huh coward??? yeah called that one didn't I....

When you grow a spine I will treat you respectfully again, until then you are kornholev's slightly older, slightly less impaired brother..

 

[Old Rocks]

Watch out for his vig links there, old boy.

 

[IanC]

do you understand that passing energy in a field is fundementally different than radiating energy away?

Not gonna answer again huh coward??? yeah called that one didn't I....

When you grow a spine I will treat you respectfully again, until then you are kornholev's slightly older, slightly less impaired brother..

I should probably just ignore you because, really, you just dont bring much to the table, do you? what would be the point of answering your simplistic questions?

ask me something of substance and I may reconsider.

 

[gslack]

do you understand that passing energy in a field is fundementally different than radiating energy away?

Not gonna answer again huh coward??? yeah called that one didn't I....

When you grow a spine I will treat you respectfully again, until then you are kornholev's slightly older, slightly less impaired brother..

I should probably just ignore you because, really, you just dont bring much to the table, do you? what would be the point of answering your simplistic questions?

ask me something of substance and I may reconsider.

Coward... You may be a fake physics expert, but you are a real coward...

Of course you won't answer any of them, you can't. You haven't shown any understanding of any of these basic principles from the start. Add to that all the other basic concepts you called made up and we see you for who you truly are.. A fake and a coward...

 

[gslack]

Watch out for his vig links there, old boy.

Nice try socks, your pal is using you, to make pennies.. Follow the instructions I gave in that other thread and see for yourself. If you don't see that code in troll's link you posted to me, I know you are still the liar you were before. 4 people now seen the code following the same or nearly the same procedures I mentioned... You clicked properties like he told you and got what exactly? Why exactly what I and viglink said you would get a simple looking link...

Try it my way once... Just do it honestly and with integrity for once in your life and perhaps I will change my mind about you a little bit. Don't do it or lie about it, and I will know I was right about you as well..

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- please define what you mean by the earth's IR EM field.

First Ian, I have not said the earth's EM field as if I am talking about the magnetic field. I have said the EM field emitted by the earth in reference to the IR emitted by the earth. Ian, do you believe the surface of the earth emits IR or do you believe that all of the energy that gets absorbed by the sun is somehow retained by the earth and never emitted?

If you believe that IR is emitted, then that is the EM field I am, and have been talking about. The heat radiated by the earth out into space. If you don't get that, then you are even further behind the curve than I thought. If you don't grasp that that IR radiation constitutes an EM field, then you are also further behind the curve than I thought.

does it have the intensity to fill every available vector at the rate that would preclude any possibility of a photon from atmospheric CO2 reaching the surface of the planet at the speed of light (you can set a minimum height if you wish).

From which vector across the wide surface of the earth do you believe the ground is cooler than the atmosphere?

once the opposing photons are created, what mechanism causes them to cease to exist and where does the energy go?

The photons are energy Ian and if they are propagated in the direction of the surface of the earth, the energy they represent will be expended via subtraction of vectors against the EM field being emitted by the surface of the earth. It is no more complicated than that Ian.

 

[wirebender]

do you understand that passing energy in a field is fundementally different than radiating energy away?

Do you grasp that the earth is radiating IR and the CO2 molecule is also radiating a small band of IR within the very wide band radiated by the earth? Both represent EM fields. I can't believe that you are unaware that radiated IR is an EM field. Your fundamental lack of knowledge is stunning Ian. No wonder you don't get any of this. Your entire mental image of what is going on is simply a fantasy.

 

[IanC]

photons are a quantity of energy.

in extremely simple terms there are two ways for photons to be created.

the first and most basic way is for a molecule to shed extra energy to get closer to its ground state. it tosses out a hot potato. once gone the molecule has no further interest in the photon which simply flies away until some other particle catches it.

the second and more complicated way is for a charged particle to send out virtual photons looking for other charged particles to interact with. when a connection is made the the virtual photon becomes a real photon with the strength and direction dependant on the distance and charge between the two interacting particles. both particles are affected at the same time relative to the photon.

you, wirebender, are confusing the different properties between just expelling a photon to shed energy with the interaction between two charged particles that exchange energy.

there is no connection between the photons expelled by the earth and the photon expelled by the excited CO2 molecule. they just pass by each other unaffected