Radiative and Reactive EM Fields

[IanC]

is that the formula for Power(net)=Power(emitted)- Power(absorbed)

yah, I've seen that one before. what about it?

Why are you asking what it is? You should recognize it mr. physics...



busted yourself again...

obviously sarcasm doesnt work on the dimwitted.



you did catch on that I was talking about you didnt you gslack? I only say this because you so often miss the point.

 

[IanC]

is that the formula for Power(net)=Power(emitted)- Power(absorbed)

yah, I've seen that one before. what about it?

Actually, it is a derivative of the Stefan-Boltzman law. It describes a one way flow of energy between objects of different temperatures. You want to discuss the possibility of two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures, then prove it, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong.

net energy flow

this is where you usually start ranting about how it is physically impossible for radiation from the atmosphere to make it to the surface. 'EM fields', 'vectors', sanctity of the thermodynamic laws, etc.

or are you going to quietly going to back away from your extreme position? like you did when you proclaimed that molecules dont absorb the wavelengths they emit. remember that doosey? and how I was an idiot to think so.

a week later you were lecturing on how molecules emit and absorb at the same wavelengths to the sychophants in your thrall. hahahaha.

 

[wirebender]

net energy flow

The equation describes a one way energy flow, not a two way flow with a net result. The equation is supported by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As I said, prove the equation incorrect and show me observable, repeatable, experimental evidence of two way energy flows between objects of different temperature and we have something to talk about. If you can't deliver, then the discussion is over and you have lost.

Time for you to step on up to the plate and deliver Ian, or at long last, admit that you can't.

 

[gslack]

is that the formula for Power(net)=Power(emitted)- Power(absorbed)

yah, I've seen that one before. what about it?

Why are you asking what it is? You should recognize it mr. physics...



busted yourself again...

obviously sarcasm doesnt work on the dimwitted.



you did catch on that I was talking about you didnt you gslack? I only say this because you so often miss the point.

Really? Then why is it so easy for me to show you for the fake you are? You didn't know what the equation was representing....

LOL, mr.physics

 

[gslack]

Ian care to explain this mathematical equation to us? Is this possible? If so please prove it mathematically...

 

[IanC]

Ian care to explain this mathematical equation to us? Is this possible? If so please prove it mathematically...

isnt that one of the old math problems from hundreds of years ago? maybe from Decartes?

why dont you just ask me to square the circle?

 

[gslack]

Ian care to explain this mathematical equation to us? Is this possible? If so please prove it mathematically...

isnt that one of the old math problems from hundreds of years ago? maybe from Decartes?

why dont you just ask me to square the circle?

So that's a no then? you can't why?

 

[IanC]

net energy flow

The equation describes a one way energy flow, not a two way flow with a net result. The equation is supported by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. As I said, prove the equation incorrect and show me observable, repeatable, experimental evidence of two way energy flows between objects of different temperature and we have something to talk about. If you can't deliver, then the discussion is over and you have lost.

Time for you to step on up to the plate and deliver Ian, or at long last, admit that you can't.

net flow. if the two objects are the same temperature there is no net flow. but that doesnt mean there is no radiation from one to the other, just that it is balanced.

 

[gslack]

Ian care to explain this mathematical equation to us? Is this possible? If so please prove it mathematically...

isnt that one of the old math problems from hundreds of years ago? maybe from Decartes?

why dont you just ask me to square the circle?

Can you at least tell me what type of equation it is?

 

[IanC]

a litre of water is heated from 20C to 25C. what is the change in pH?

 

[gslack]

a litre of water is heated from 20C to 25C. what is the change in pH?

Like I care...

My point is made Ian.. I am not a physicist, or a chemist and never claimed to be one I even made a point that I am learning on my own as I go... You on the other hand claim to be an expert on physics here....

So you didn't recognize Fermat's last Theorem... Matter of fact you couldn't tell me what type of equation it was...

Ian that was Fermat's Last Theorem I posted. it made into the Guinness Book of World Records as one of the most difficult math problems. its been around since Fermat made the conjecture in the early to mid 1600's. it wasn't proven until 1995 when some guy named Wiles proved it with computers..

oh for the record, that is called a Diophantine equation.. Another little thing you should know Mr. Physics....

yeah, what I say? What was the word I used..... I yeah I remember FAKE!

 

[IanC]

I recognized it as an old question associated with a famous mathematician. what more do you want?

my question to you was extremely simple. increased heat causes more disassociation therefore the pH goes down. no math skills needed, just a basic knowledge of how things work.

 

[wirebender]

net flow. if the two objects are the same temperature there is no net flow. but that doesnt mean there is no radiation from one to the other, just that it is balanced.

If they are the same temperature, then they are radiating as if they were a single object just like the 2nd law of thermodnamics predicts.

Back to the original challenge Ian. Either you can prove Stefan-Boltzman and the 2nd law of thermodynamics wrong or you can't. If you can't, then if you are a rational individual, you will give up these crazy ideas of two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures. If you aren't, your faith will continue to drive your intellect.

 

[gslack]

I recognized it as an old question associated with a famous mathematician. what more do you want?

my question to you was extremely simple. increased heat causes more disassociation therefore the pH goes down. no math skills needed, just a basic knowledge of how things work.

Ian, you spent all this time assuring me, wirebender and everyone else who will listen that you are an expert in this particular discipline at least on this forum. And so far you haven't been able to recognize any of the core principles and experiments I have referenced, none of the laws and equations wirebender has put forth. Further, even though you continually claim we are wrong, you have not been able to show how or where we are wrong. All you have done is confound the topic, distract from points with inconsequential and relatively non-applicable experiments, and generally be as obtuse as you can when asked a direct question...

As far as ph balance in a heated liquid, I could give a rats ass Ian... I really do not have a need, a desire, or a use for it right now. I decided to teach myself a bit of higher mathematics simply because I wanted to understand more about it. In all of this there was no point that I made the claim I was an expert on it, and at no point did I simply stand there and nay-say everything and pretend some higher knowledge and education on the subject that I do not have. When I didn't know I went and learned.. And thats the difference.. When you don't know you call it wrong and show your ass.

Do yourself a favor and start to be a bit more honest with yourself Ian. You are buying into your own bullshit now...

 

[IanC]

I recognized it as an old question associated with a famous mathematician. what more do you want?

my question to you was extremely simple. increased heat causes more disassociation therefore the pH goes down. no math skills needed, just a basic knowledge of how things work.

Ian, you spent all this time assuring me, wirebender and everyone else who will listen that you are an expert in this particular discipline at least on this forum. And so far you haven't been able to recognize any of the core principles and experiments I have referenced, none of the laws and equations wirebender has put forth. Further, even though you continually claim we are wrong, you have not been able to show how or where we are wrong. All you have done is confound the topic, distract from points with inconsequential and relatively non-applicable experiments, and generally be as obtuse as you can when asked a direct question...

As far as ph balance in a heated liquid, I could give a rats ass Ian... I really do not have a need, a desire, or a use for it right now. I decided to teach myself a bit of higher mathematics simply because I wanted to understand more about it. In all of this there was no point that I made the claim I was an expert on it, and at no point did I simply stand there and nay-say everything and pretend some higher knowledge and education on the subject that I do not have. When I didn't know I went and learned.. And thats the difference.. When you don't know you call it wrong and show your ass.

Do yourself a favor and start to be a bit more honest with yourself Ian. You are buying into your own bullshit now...

I think you need to see a psychiatrist. you are obviously projecting your imperfections onto me.

you asked a question on math history. I gave an answer, unfortunately I guessed Descartes as the famous mathematician instead of Fermat. at least I didnt just google the answer.

I asked you a question based on basic chemistry and physics. you didnt even try to answer. you had a 50/50 chance of being right, or you even could have got my respect by saying both the H+ and OH- ions increased so that the water is still neutral.

please explain where I have claimed to be an expert on anything. I started off by saying wirebender was wrong but that I didnt know exactly why. as the discussion progressed I started narrowing down the areas he was confused about. and he stopped answering my pointed questions.

the only ones here that are shucking and jiving to avoid looking stupid and ignorant are you and wirebender. I am quite willing to be shown wrong, even on side points, but you guys wont discuss the problems by answering my questions or even by bringing up relevant counter questions.

I like thinking about physics. I have even thanks wirebender for bringing up interesting topics. but you guys arent interested in the physics otherwise you would try to describe the situations instead of just stating over and over again that I am wrong. or saying that the proof is in some older post that you wont show me because I made you mad! hahahaha

 

[IanC]

wirebender- I am still waiting for you to show that photons magically disappear without interacting with matter. if it is such a common occurence there must be a lot of literature out there for you to draw upon. when are you going to present it?

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- I am still waiting for you to show that photons magically disappear without interacting with matter. if it is such a common occurence there must be a lot of literature out there for you to draw upon. when are you going to present it?

Nothing magic about it ian. Apparently it is true that anything sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic. Photons cancelling each other out, isn't even that advanced ian, sorry that it seems like magic to you. Perhaps you might do a google search on the topic of photons cancelling each other out.

 

[IanC]

wirebender- I am still waiting for you to show that photons magically disappear without interacting with matter. if it is such a common occurence there must be a lot of literature out there for you to draw upon. when are you going to present it?

Nothing magic about it ian. Apparently it is true that anything sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic. Photons cancelling each other out, isn't even that advanced ian, sorry that it seems like magic to you. Perhaps you might do a google search on the topic of photons cancelling each other out.

I have linked to a reference that describes how the waveforms interact when the photons pass each other, and it states that photons pass through each other and carry on as if nothing had happened once they leave the area of interference. you have made the claim that they have been obliterated, destroyed, cancelled out. I would like you to present evidence that I am wrong and you are right. one of us has to be wrong. so far you have ducked the question. the only photons that disappear are virtual photons but we have been discussing radiative photons.

 

[gslack]

Ian, go get your sock and back your argument again.. Make sure you tell us about the photons "feelings" too... LOL

 

[wirebender]

wirebender- I am still waiting for you to show that photons magically disappear without interacting with matter. if it is such a common occurence there must be a lot of literature out there for you to draw upon. when are you going to present it?

Nothing magic about it ian. Apparently it is true that anything sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic. Photons cancelling each other out, isn't even that advanced ian, sorry that it seems like magic to you. Perhaps you might do a google search on the topic of photons cancelling each other out.

I have linked to a reference that describes how the waveforms interact when the photons pass each other, and it states that photons pass through each other and carry on as if nothing had happened once they leave the area of interference. you have made the claim that they have been obliterated, destroyed, cancelled out. I would like you to present evidence that I am wrong and you are right. one of us has to be wrong. so far you have ducked the question. the only photons that disappear are virtual photons but we have been discussing radiative photons.

Here ian, a simple, observable, repeatable experiment demonstrating photons cancelling each other out without the benefit of a bit of matter to crash into. And again, virtual photons have no place within this discussion. Virtual photons are theoretical carriers of energy within the confines of an atom between electrons and neutrons or protons. I do wish you would learn that bit of information as well. Your incessant talk of virtual photons in this discussion is one more bit of clear evidence that you just don't know enough about this topic to discuss it intelligently.

Single Particle Interferance

Here is another article that speaks to photons cancelling each other out. You won't find much information on how they cancel each other out or why ian, because the process is not understood. The fact that they do cancel each other out, however, is not disputed because the phenomenon can be seen in the lab.

Successful quantum teleportation between two unconnected atoms one meter apart

and another; see destructive interference.

photons - Anti-laser: How sure we are that energy is transported? - Physics - Stack Exchange

and another; see long term integration.

W6AMT's pointers to pointers

The bottom line ian, is that photons can and do cancel each other out and don't need a brick wall to collide into in order for it to happen. Your knowledge base on this topic is just to thin and your unwillingness to even attempt to grasp what wave particle duality means and its ramifications on the behavior and interaction of EM fields leaves you completely in the dark.

It isn't magic ian, but till you wake up and realize that you are, and have been wrong on this topic all along and start to do some actual research towards learning what is rather than grasping at whatever you believe proves you right, you are going to remain behind the curve.