When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[wirebender]

you keep bringing up general definitions of words but your sources never have any thing to say about your magical theory of photons disappearing into oblivion without the need to interact with matter.

It has been explained to you over and over. The problem is that you lack the foundational knowledge required to understand and grasp the explanations you have been given.

As do definitions, I give specific definitions, not general ones. A photon is described by every scientific dictionary I can find as the quantum of electromagnetic radiation meaning the smallest possible mearuable bit of radiation in an EM field. Now, are you going to tell me that EM fields must interact with matter in order to be diminished?

You have a terribly mistaken notion of what a photon is and till you get that straight in your head, you won't be able to grasp what happens when EM fields interact as evidenced by your continued misunderstanding.

 

[IanC]

you keep bringing up general definitions of words but your sources never have any thing to say about your magical theory of photons disappearing into oblivion without the need to interact with matter.

It has been explained to you over and over. The problem is that you lack the foundational knowledge required to understand and grasp the explanations you have been given.

As do definitions, I give specific definitions, not general ones. A photon is described by every scientific dictionary I can find as the quantum of electromagnetic radiation meaning the smallest possible mearuable bit of radiation in an EM field. Now, are you going to tell me that EM fields must interact with matter in order to be diminished?

You have a terribly mistaken notion of what a photon is and till you get that straight in your head, you won't be able to grasp what happens when EM fields interact as evidenced by your continued misunderstanding.

you dont seem to understand that matter is what produces EM fields. specifically charged particles. photons can only be created or destroyed by matter.

 

[wirebender]

you dont seem to understand that matter is what produces EM fields. specifically charged particles. photons can only be created or destroyed by matter.

So is it your contention that only matter can diminish an EM field since an EM field is composed entirely of photons?

Odd, don't you think that no scientific dictionary defines photons in a manner that even remotely resembles the attributes you assign to them?

 

[Dante]

find your photo in the dick-tion-airy, and then read the text alongside it: it will be under the heading of failed pedant

Except that you haven't rebutted a single thing I have said. You might want to borow my dictionary to look up the word fail for yourself. You clearly have little experience with the book.

your schtick is old. Asking questions as if you are a trial lawyer, while ignoring questions first poised to you, is a sure sign that you go for cheap political points and not winning arguments.

You can avoid, deflect, and attempt deceit all you want, but none of that changes the facts that you refuse to accept reality.

Dante is the OP. Dante asked you a few questions. You deflected and then asked nonsensical questions be addressed. Dante refuses to play defense to a wingnutty offense that went off topic.

you lose .. again

 

[Dante]

And the ignorance just keeps pouring out when you guys are involved.

you guys? there you go again, lumping people into stereotype groups to make a point without regard to individuals you claim to be debating.,


you're a tool and a fool

'tool and a fool' is not bad

personally I see you as bad tempered and ill mannered Cliff Clavin, but to each his own.

you keep bringing up general definitions of words but your sources never have any thing to say about your magical theory of...

my theory? magical or not, I have proposed no theories. I have said I am not a scientist, nor do I play a scientist on the world wide web. What I have linked to is NASA.

You either agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence and the overwhelming majority of scientists -- or you do not.

 

[Dante]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

Which part of that do you believe represents proof of anything. There was not a single bit of hard evidence there that points the finger at man as responsible for the changing climate. There was much conjecture, and guesswork, and assumption and bias, but not a single shred of hard evidence that proves that man is in any way responsible for the changing climate.

Do feel free to link to any part that you believe is backed up by hard observable, repeatable evidence of any sort.

As to the nobel, the fact that gore and obama got them pretty much proves that the organization is for sale to the highest bidder.

And of course there is bogus data on the nasa site. It has been shown over and over. The altered temperature records that they get from giss is a prime example.

Which scientific evidence would that be? Output from models doesn't constitute evidence of anything more than icompetent programming skills. There is not a whit of observable, repeatable evidence that establishes a hard link between the activites of man and the perpetually changing climate.

If you believe, as clearly you do, that there exists this overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that points the finger at man in regard to climate change, how about you post a bit of it.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site?

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

Which part of that do you believe represents proof of anything. There was not a single bit of hard evidence there that points the finger at man as responsible for the changing climate. There was much conjecture, and guesswork, and assumption and bias, but not a single shred of hard evidence that proves that man is in any way responsible for the changing climate.

Do feel free to link to any part that you believe is backed up by hard observable, repeatable evidence of any sort.

As to the nobel, the fact that gore and obama got them pretty much proves that the organization is for sale to the highest bidder.

And of course there is bogus data on the nasa site. It has been shown over and over. The altered temperature records that they get from giss is a prime example.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site and do they know what you and Frank know?

You two could possibly win a Nobel.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet try telling me where NASA is wrong? Is there bogus info on NASA's site?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

NASA has a global climate change web site?

What a world, what a world.

Vital Signs of the Planet

damn liberal scientists!

Not really sure when it happened, but I noticed it when liberals started trying to kill off NASA programs while simultaneously arguing that they need to do Muslim outreach.

actually NASA has a lot of areas that do pretty good science, much of which produces evidence that counters CAGW. unfortunately only Goddard (GISS) seems to get picked up by the media.

Did I say it doesn't do good science? If you go read through my posts on NASA you will not find a single one where I criticize it. I still am not criticizing it, I am objection to Obama trying to make it into a tool.

Dante wanted to know when it became a tool, I pointed out when I noticed it. If you want to deny that Obama ordered NASA to do Muslim outreach, which is about politics, not science, don't expect me to let you get away with it.

​

 

[starcraftzzz]

you guys? there you go again, lumping people into stereotype groups to make a point without regard to individuals you claim to be debating.,


you're a tool and a fool

'tool and a fool' is not bad

personally I see you as bad tempered and ill mannered Cliff Clavin, but to each his own.

you keep bringing up general definitions of words but your sources never have any thing to say about your magical theory of...

my theory? magical or not, I have proposed no theories. I have said I am not a scientist, nor do I play a scientist on the world wide web. What I have linked to is NASA.

You either agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence and the overwhelming majority of scientists -- or you do not.

Don't you get it Human caused global warming is magic just like gravity and electricity

 

[ScienceRocks]

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | April 2012

Second warmest land temperature for April in recorded history(first for the northern Hempishere). Noaa temperatures match Giss, RSS, UAH globally for the month. The oceans are still quite cold and are weighing the avg down to 5th warmest.

Anyone could understand that if the oceans "warm" up that the avg would warm towards 1st-3rd warmest ever each month. On top of the reality that if the oceans were to warm that the land would warm to!

 

[IanC]

you guys? there you go again, lumping people into stereotype groups to make a point without regard to individuals you claim to be debating.,


you're a tool and a fool

'tool and a fool' is not bad

personally I see you as bad tempered and ill mannered Cliff Clavin, but to each his own.

you keep bringing up general definitions of words but your sources never have any thing to say about your magical theory of...

my theory? magical or not, I have proposed no theories. I have said I am not a scientist, nor do I play a scientist on the world wide web. What I have linked to is NASA.

You either agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence and the overwhelming majority of scientists -- or you do not.

sorry dante, I was actually talking to wirebender. please excuse the confusion. as far as overwhelming evidence, it just is not there. at least not for catastrophic global warming.

 

[IanC]

Not really sure when it happened, but I noticed it when liberals started trying to kill off NASA programs while simultaneously arguing that they need to do Muslim outreach.

actually NASA has a lot of areas that do pretty good science, much of which produces evidence that counters CAGW. unfortunately only Goddard (GISS) seems to get picked up by the media.

Did I say it doesn't do good science? If you go read through my posts on NASA you will not find a single one where I criticize it. I still am not criticizing it, I am objection to Obama trying to make it into a tool.

Dante wanted to know when it became a tool, I pointed out when I noticed it. If you want to deny that Obama ordered NASA to do Muslim outreach, which is about politics, not science, don't expect me to let you get away with it.

​

actually I was trying to point out that NASA is a big operation with many divisions. some do great work with not a lot of fanfare, others do shoddy work (like GISS) and get a tremendous amount of publicity that will damage NASA's reputation. I remember Obama's photo-op about muslim outreach but ignored it as political posturing. did they really follow up on it?

 

[zonly1]

actually NASA has a lot of areas that do pretty good science, much of which produces evidence that counters CAGW. unfortunately only Goddard (GISS) seems to get picked up by the media.

Did I say it doesn't do good science? If you go read through my posts on NASA you will not find a single one where I criticize it. I still am not criticizing it, I am objection to Obama trying to make it into a tool.

Dante wanted to know when it became a tool, I pointed out when I noticed it. If you want to deny that Obama ordered NASA to do Muslim outreach, which is about politics, not science, don't expect me to let you get away with it.

​

actually I was trying to point out that NASA is a big operation with many divisions. some do great work with not a lot of fanfare, others do shoddy work (like GISS) and get a tremendous amount of publicity that will damage NASA's reputation. I remember Obama's photo-op about muslim outreach but ignored it as political posturing. did they really follow up on it?

physics aside, it's all about him, privileged his entry life, from education and it's location to the most expensive colleges in the world, never worked a day in his life in the private sector and cont to split one group after another.....that's leadership you can count on

 

[IanC]

you dont seem to understand that matter is what produces EM fields. specifically charged particles. photons can only be created or destroyed by matter.

So is it your contention that only matter can diminish an EM field since an EM field is composed entirely of photons?

Odd, don't you think that no scientific dictionary defines photons in a manner that even remotely resembles the attributes you assign to them?

I think it is odd that no definition of photon describes you magical obliteration of photons in the absence of matter.

earlier you quoted the wikipedia entry on photons. Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the first sentence is

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.

there are my two variations of photons. the discrete, stand alone version that is already bought and paid for by being emitted as light. and the second version which only exists as a force carrier in electromagnetic fields where one particle is exerting force on another particle.

later in the article it describes how electromagnetic field forces are quantified

Dirac's second-order perturbation theory can involve virtual photons, transient intermediate states of the electromagnetic field; the static electric and magnetic interactions are mediated by such virtual photons. In such quantum field theories, the probability amplitude of observable events is calculated by summing over all possible intermediate steps, even ones that are unphysical; hence, virtual photons are not constrained to satisfy(did not copy equation) , and may have extra polarization states; depending on the gauge used, virtual photons may have three or four polarization states, instead of the two states of real photons. Although these transient virtual photons can never be observed, they contribute measurably to the probabilities of observable events.

nowhere in a long, complicated and dry article did it ever suggest that real (as opposed to virtual) photons magically blinked out of existence.

 

[IanC]

Did I say it doesn't do good science? If you go read through my posts on NASA you will not find a single one where I criticize it. I still am not criticizing it, I am objection to Obama trying to make it into a tool.

Dante wanted to know when it became a tool, I pointed out when I noticed it. If you want to deny that Obama ordered NASA to do Muslim outreach, which is about politics, not science, don't expect me to let you get away with it.

​

actually I was trying to point out that NASA is a big operation with many divisions. some do great work with not a lot of fanfare, others do shoddy work (like GISS) and get a tremendous amount of publicity that will damage NASA's reputation. I remember Obama's photo-op about muslim outreach but ignored it as political posturing. did they really follow up on it?

physics aside, it's all about him, privileged his entry life, from education and it's location to the most expensive colleges in the world, never worked a day in his life in the private sector and cont to split one group after another.....that's leadership you can count on

hahaha. the only difference between Obama and many other politicians is his high level of incompetency.

really-- we demand politicians to lie to us or we dont elect them, and then when they are in office we are offended because they continue to lie.

 

[wirebender]

I think it is odd that no definition of photon describes you magical obliteration of photons in the absence of matter.

You didn't answer the question. Are you arguing that an EM field must encounter matter in order to be diminished?

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.

there are my two variations of photons. the discrete, stand alone version that is already bought and paid for by being emitted as light. and the second version which only exists as a force carrier in electromagnetic fields where one particle is exerting force on another particle.

Maybe you should look up the word quantum again. It states in explicitly clear terms that an EM field is made of photons. Now, once again, are you arguing that an EM field can only be diminished when it encounters matter?

nowhere in a long, complicated and dry article did it ever suggest that real (as opposed to virtual) photons magically blinked out of existence.

Again, a virtual photon only applies to a theoretical carrier of energy between neutrons or protons and electrons. Till you understand what you are reading about and trying to talk about, you aren't going to understand this and you aren't willing to learn because to do so would require that you admit you are wrong.

Ask yourself ian, if EM fields are made of photons, and EM fields can diminish, or cancel each other out, what do you suppose is being cancelled out if not photons? When you diminish the magnitude of a thing, youdo so by removing the "stuff". In the case of EM fields, that "stuff" is photons. Again, learn the definition of quantum. You simply can't torture the definitions to mesh with your explanation while my explanation requires no torture at all It fits the definitions and physics like a glove.

 

[IanC]

I think it is odd that no definition of photon describes you magical obliteration of photons in the absence of matter.

You didn't answer the question. Are you arguing that an EM field must encounter matter in order to be diminished?

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force.

there are my two variations of photons. the discrete, stand alone version that is already bought and paid for by being emitted as light. and the second version which only exists as a force carrier in electromagnetic fields where one particle is exerting force on another particle.

Maybe you should look up the word quantum again. It states in explicitly clear terms that an EM field is made of photons. Now, once again, are you arguing that an EM field can only be diminished when it encounters matter?

nowhere in a long, complicated and dry article did it ever suggest that real (as opposed to virtual) photons magically blinked out of existence.

Again, a virtual photon only applies to a theoretical carrier of energy between neutrons or protons and electrons. Till you understand what you are reading about and trying to talk about, you aren't going to understand this and you aren't willing to learn because to do so would require that you admit you are wrong.

Ask yourself ian, if EM fields are made of photons, and EM fields can diminish, or cancel each other out, what do you suppose is being cancelled out if not photons? When you diminish the magnitude of a thing, youdo so by removing the "stuff". In the case of EM fields, that "stuff" is photons. Again, learn the definition of quantum. You simply can't torture the definitions to mesh with your explanation while my explanation requires no torture at all It fits the definitions and physics like a glove.

neutrons? if you are talking about neutrons we have to go into a whole new realm of particles.

radiative sources of light photons (like the sun) diminish not because there are less photons but because the photons are spread out over a larger area the farther they get away from the source- 1/d2.

reactive sources like electric or magnetic fields are dependant on the shape and strength of the fields interacting and are mediated by both real and virtual photons that determine the amount and direction of the force transfered. electromagnetic field strengths can be calculated but you cant see free photons because they are only real when they transfer energy.

please link to a source that states photons wink out of existence without the need for matter to be present to accept the energy and momentum

 

[IanC]

Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space. The energy and momentum of a virtual particle are uncertain according to the uncertainty principle. The degree of uncertainty of each is inversely proportional to time duration (for energy) or to position span (for momentum).

Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws. If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual. Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Examples of these are static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic field, or the components of any field that do not carry information from place to place at the speed of light (information radiated by means of a field must be composed of real particles). Virtual photons are also a major component of antenna near field phenomena and induction fields, which have shorter-range effects, and do not radiate through space with the same range-properties as do electromagnetic wave photons. For example, the energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, or to and from a patient in an MRI scanner, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not real photons.[1]

The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass (which consists of "borrowed energy"[citation needed]) because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited "range". This is in accordance with the uncertainty principle, which allows existence of such particles of borrowed energy, so long as their energy, multiplied by the time they exist, is a fraction of Planck's constant. Possession of mass also allows single virtual photons to be more easily created and emitted from single charged elementary particles, something that cannot happen for massless photons, without violating conservation of momentum and energy (single real photons are always created and emitted from systems of two or more particles). For particles that do have a rest mass, their virtual forms still violate the energy-momentum relation of special relativity, in having a mass more or less than predicted by the relation:

E2 − p2c2 = m2c4. For this reason, the force-carrier particles are generally massless - the primary exception being the W+/- and Z[2] bosons of the Weak Interaction.
The concept of virtual particles is closely related to the idea of quantum fluctuations. Virtual particles can be thought of as coming into existence as quantities, such as the electric field, which fluctuate around their expectation values as required by quantum mechanics.[3]

The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory, an approximation scheme in which interactions (in essence, forces) between real particles are calculated in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, which facilitates the understanding of calculations.

Some field interactions which may be seen in terms of virtual particles are:

The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.
The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.
Much of the so-called near-field of radio antennas, where the magnetic and electric effects of the changing current in the antenna wire and the charge effects of the wire's capacitive charge may be (and usually are) important contributors to the total EM field close to the source, but both of which effects are dipole effects that decay with increasing distance from the antenna much more quickly than do the influence of "conventional" electromagnetic waves that are "far" from the source. ["Far" in terms of terms of ratio of antenna length or diameter, to wavelength]. These far-field waves, for which E is (in the limit of long distance) equal to cB, are composed of real photons. It should be noted that real and virtual photons are mixed near an antenna, with the virtual photons responsible only for the "extra" magnetic-inductive and transient electric-dipole effects, which cause any imbalance between E and cB. As distance from the antenna grows, the near-field effects (as dipole fields) die out more quickly, and only the "radiative" effects that are due to real photons remain as important effects. Although virtual effects extend to infinity, they drop off in field strength as 1/r2 rather than the field of EM waves composed of real photons, which drop 1/r (the powers, respectively, decrease as 1/r4 and 1/r2). See near and far field for a more detailed discussion. See near field communication for practical communications applications of near fields.
Electromagnetic induction. This phenomenon transferring energy to and from a magnetic coil via a changing (electro)magnetic field can be viewed as a near-field effect. It is the basis for power transfer in transformers and electric generators and motors, and also signal transfer in metal detectors, magnetic and magnetoacustic anti theft electronic tags, and even signals between patient and machine in an MRI scanner. Some confusion about the use of "radio waves" results when these devices are used at conventional RF frequencies, as they are in an MRI scanner.

It is sometimes said that all photons are virtual photons.[7] This is because the world-lines of photons always resemble the dotted line in the above Feynman diagram: The photon was emitted somewhere (say, a distant star), and then is absorbed somewhere else (say a photoreceptor cell in the eyeball). Furthermore, in a vacuum, a photon experiences no passage of (proper) time between emission and absorption. This statement illustrates the difficulty of trying to distinguish between "real" and "virtual" particles, because, in mathematical terms, they are the same objects and it is only our definition of "reality" that is weak here. In practice, a clear distinction can be made: real photons are detected as individual particles in particle detectors, whereas virtual photons are not directly detected; only their average or side-effects may be noticed, in the form of forces or (in modern language) interactions between particles.

well wirebender, it seems like my version of virtual photons conforms to standard definition whereas yours does not encompass everything. care to admit that you were not correct?

 

[wirebender]

My how you dance. It was a yes or no question. Do you contend that an EM field must encounter matter in order to be diminished in magnitude or travel X distance? Is it your belief that destructive interference between EM fields does not happen? Those questions only require yes or no answers.

 

[wirebender]

well wirebender, it seems like my version of virtual photons conforms to standard definition whereas yours does not encompass everything. care to admit that you were not correct?

Admit that I am wrong over a wiki article? Laughing at you ian. Laughing at you.

I have already given you info on virtual photons from an actual physics text and you respond with wiki? Laughing......

 

[IanC]

My how you dance. It was a yes or no question. Do you contend that an EM field must encounter matter in order to be diminished in magnitude or travel X distance? Is it your belief that destructive interference between EM fields does not happen? Those questions only require yes or no answers.

how I dance? hahahahaha

if I dance then you turtle. you never come close to answering direct questions.

your question-

Do you contend that an EM field must encounter matter in order to be diminished in magnitude or travel X distance?

. what the fuck is that supposed to mean? you call everything an EM field without defining anything. if it is a radiative field (light source) then the photon density diminishes according to 1/(distance squared). no photons disappear unless you put a particle of matter in the path to measure it. if you are talking about interference between two radiative fields with photons able to constructively or destructively interact with each other, then if you measure at the point of interaction with a bit of matter you will see the interference. otherwise the photons will pass by each other as if nothing had happened.

if you are talking about electric or magnetic fields it is much more complicated to calculate the force that would be transfered if and only if, you put a piece of matter that can react with the field into the field. otherwise the virtual photons that make up the field will not be transformed into real photons which transfer force between two particles of matter. unused virtual photons simply cease to exist before they are in violation of the uncertainty principle and therefore do not need to be paid for.

radiative photons are always real and carry away energy whether they are absorbed later or not.

reactive photons are created specifically to carry forces between two particles of matter in an electric or magnetic field and can be attractive or repulsive.


wirebender- you seem to have the properties of the two all muddled up in your head which leads to massive confusion.


as an interesting aside, one of the many unusual experimental result dealing with photons was found using magnets to polarize a light source. it was found that if the magnet was close to the light source the light polarized, if the magnet was close to the detector the light was polarized, but if the magnet was in the middle away from the light source and detector, then the light was not polarized. in some way the polarization was matter mediated. without matter photons are neither created or destroyed.