Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[IanC]

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Never fails to make me smile when you start talking as if you know what these theoretical particles are doing..what they can and can't do..talking as if you actually had some concrete evidence that they exist.

So now you deny that light exists?

Of course not..light exists as a wave, and that wave exists with properties that we as yet don't understand..photons are just a place holding story that we use till such time as we understand all the properties of the wave.

Good grief! Light has properties of both waves and particles, so obviously it is neither.

Hahahaha. SSDD thinks light is a binary choice between wave and particle, and his vote is for wave. Hahahaha.

That actually helps to clear up some of his other positions. Once he makes an either/or binary decision, he simply stops taking in new information. Fuzzy boundaries become sharp.

 

[IanC]

I hear you saying that your hubris trumps all of science. Sorry that doesn't work for me nor any scientist.

I hear you talking but you still aren't saying anything at all.

In physics there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon.

In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it. Describe the how and why of energy exchange. If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.

What kind of energy transfer? There are different types and different mechanisms.

 

[SSDD]

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Never fails to make me smile when you start talking as if you know what these theoretical particles are doing..what they can and can't do..talking as if you actually had some concrete evidence that they exist.

So now you deny that light exists?

Of course not..light exists as a wave, and that wave exists with properties that we as yet don't understand..photons are just a place holding story that we use till such time as we understand all the properties of the wave.

Good grief! Light has properties of both waves and particles, so obviously it is neither.

Hahahaha. SSDD thinks light is a binary choice between wave and particle, and his vote is for wave. Hahahaha.

That actually helps to clear up some of his other positions. Once he makes an either/or binary decision, he simply stops taking in new information. Fuzzy boundaries become sharp.

And the wait continues for you to say something substantive...and while we are waiting, photons remain theoretical particles which were hypothesized in an effort to explain a thing about the nature of light that we still don't understand...

When do you suppose, if ever, you might start concentrating on developing the skill to differentiate between what is real, and what is not?

 

[SSDD]

I hear you saying that your hubris trumps all of science. Sorry that doesn't work for me nor any scientist.

I hear you talking but you still aren't saying anything at all.

In physics there is no possible physical concept that would prevent objects at the same temperature from radiating equal amounts of energy toward each other. And you can't come up with a concept either. But still, you believe in that unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable phenomenon.

In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it. Describe the how and why of energy exchange. If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.

What kind of energy transfer? There are different types and different mechanisms.

Since the only sort of energy transfer that we actually understand the mechanism for is along the line of rocks rolling down hill, or hammers hitting nails, then lets make it radiative energy transfer...As I said, we can measure it, we can observe it, we can make predictions based on what we have measured and observed, but the how and why of it remain a mystery...we have not scratched the surface..we have hypothesized, and theorized, and put together stories that mesh with our observations, but in so far as understanding what and how it is happening at the microscopic level, we are in the dark.

 

[IanC]

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Never fails to make me smile when you start talking as if you know what these theoretical particles are doing..what they can and can't do..talking as if you actually had some concrete evidence that they exist.

So now you deny that light exists?

Of course not..light exists as a wave, and that wave exists with properties that we as yet don't understand..photons are just a place holding story that we use till such time as we understand all the properties of the wave.

Good grief! Light has properties of both waves and particles, so obviously it is neither.

Hahahaha. SSDD thinks light is a binary choice between wave and particle, and his vote is for wave. Hahahaha.

That actually helps to clear up some of his other positions. Once he makes an either/or binary decision, he simply stops taking in new information. Fuzzy boundaries become sharp.

And the wait continues for you to say something substantive...and while we are waiting, photons remain theoretical particles which were hypothesized in an effort to explain a thing about the nature of light that we still don't understand...

When do you suppose, if ever, you might start concentrating on developing the skill to differentiate between what is real, and what is not?

So you think light is real. But calling a single bit of light a photon is 'unreal'. Calling light a wave is real, pointing out examples where it acts like a particle is unreal.

If you are unhappy with how I have interpreted your words, please, explain yourself.

 

[SSDD]

So you think light is real. But calling a single bit of light a photon is 'unreal'. Calling light a wave is real, pointing out examples where it acts like a particle is unreal.

Since we don't know whether we understand all the properties of waves, exactly how do you know that it is acting like a particle rather than some property of a wave that we don't understand...again, refer to the ability to differentiate between what is real, and the stories we tell in an attempt to explain things we don't understand.

 

[IanC]

..we have hypothesized, and theorized, and put together stories that mesh with our observations, but in so far as understanding what and how it is happening at the microscopic level, we are in the dark

So none of our explanations are real? No matter how successful they are at describing our observations? No matter how many predictions come to fruition?

Do we really have to know everything before we can say we know anything at all? Are Newton's laws wrong because they are incomplete?

You say the first version of the SLoT makes the prediction that energy can only go from 'warm to cold', for any type of transfer. Yet the molecules in a volume of gas have a wide range of kinetic speeds. How did that happen, and why does the variation continue? Why aren't they all the same speed? Where does random chance fit in if everything is determined by your version of the SLoT?

 

[IanC]

So you think light is real. But calling a single bit of light a photon is 'unreal'. Calling light a wave is real, pointing out examples where it acts like a particle is unreal.

Since we don't know whether we understand all the properties of waves, exactly how do you know that it is acting like a particle rather than some property of a wave that we don't understand...again, refer to the ability to differentiate between what is real, and the stories we tell in an attempt to explain things we don't understand.

Why do all your arguments devolve into fighting over the 'correct' definition of terms? A wave is a wave, a particle is a particle. A photon shows the attributes of both therefore it is something else, neither a wave nor a particle. You can't define the quantum world by direct analogies with the macroscopic world. We only discovered QM because macroscopic rules couldn't explain the paradoxes.

You seem to prefer ignoring the paradoxes.

 

[Wuwei]

In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it. Describe the how and why of energy exchange. If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.

This is the mechanism:

Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

 

[SSDD]

You can't define the quantum world by direct analogies with the macroscopic world. We only discovered QM because macroscopic rules couldn't explain the paradoxes.

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...Niels Bohr

Your chief error is that you believe there is a quantum world...there isn't...there is only the stories we tell.

 

[SSDD]

Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

]

Like I guessed...you don't even understand the concept of an underlying mechanism..I suppose your description of the underlying mechanism of an internal combustion engine is that it makes the wheels turn. Or that gravity makes things attract...You didn't even begin to touch on an actual how or why energy moves...no worries though...no one knows....and that includes you.

It is sad, however, that you believe your explanation even touched on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer. Shows how little you actually know.

 

[IanC]

In order for that claim to have any credibility at all, you must know what the fundamental mechanism driving energy exchange is...lets hear it. Describe the how and why of energy exchange. If you can't do that..and we all know that you can't since science doesn't know, then your statement regarding no possible physical concept is just another bullshit statement by a religious zealot.

This is the mechanism:

Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

He has never addressed this issue in the past, I doubt that he will now. Except perhaps to deny the atomic scale world.

 

[Wuwei]

Like I guessed...you don't even understand the concept of an underlying mechanism..I suppose your description of the underlying mechanism of an internal combustion engine is that it makes the wheels turn. Or that gravity makes things attract...You didn't even begin to touch on an actual how or why energy moves...no worries though...no one knows....and that includes you.

It is sad, however, that you believe your explanation even touched on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer. Shows how little you actually know.

That was spoken like a petulant child. Why don't you give me a physical counterargument.

 

[IanC]

Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

]

Like I guessed...you don't even understand the concept of an underlying mechanism..I suppose your description of the underlying mechanism of an internal combustion engine is that it makes the wheels turn. Or that gravity makes things attract...You didn't even begin to touch on an actual how or why energy moves...no worries though...no one knows....and that includes you.

It is sad, however, that you believe your explanation even touched on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer. Shows how little you actually know.

He gave a mechanism for radiation. You don't like it even though it makes sense and is built up from physical laws that are demonstrable.

Unlike your claim that has no basis in physics.

 

[Wuwei]

He has never addressed this issue in the past, I doubt that he will now. Except perhaps to deny the atomic scale world.

Yes, he is still afraid to address it. But no doubt he is searching the web with some key words.

 

[SSDD]

Like I guessed...you don't even understand the concept of an underlying mechanism..I suppose your description of the underlying mechanism of an internal combustion engine is that it makes the wheels turn. Or that gravity makes things attract...You didn't even begin to touch on an actual how or why energy moves...no worries though...no one knows....and that includes you.

It is sad, however, that you believe your explanation even touched on the underlying mechanism of energy transfer. Shows how little you actually know.

That was spoken like a petulant child. Why don't you give me a physical counterargument.

Your attempt at describing the mechanism of energy movement was that of a petulant child...rather than simply acknowledge that we don't know, you come up with some half assed description of energy movement...and nothing to do with the actual mechanism...pointing out your error is what adults do with petulant children so that they don't grow up believing that they know things that they don't. Guess your parents dropped the ball with you.

 

[SSDD]

He gave a mechanism for radiation. You don't like it even though it makes sense and is built up from physical laws that are demonstrable.

Unlike your claim that has no basis in physics.

No he didn't...but it is interesting that you think he did...guess you know even less than I had given you credit for.

And 2 way energy flow is not demonstrable...also interesting that you believe it is...

 

[Wuwei]

Your attempt at describing the mechanism of energy movement was that of a petulant child...rather than simply acknowledge that we don't know, you come up with some half assed description of energy movement...and nothing to do with the actual mechanism...pointing out your error is what adults do with petulant children so that they don't grow up believing that they know things that they don't. Guess your parents dropped the ball with you.

You are still stalling. You still haven't given me a reason why you think this is wrong:

The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (see Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Years ago when I was learning the basics of fiber-optic transmission we applied a laser to each end of the 1 mile long spool, at the same frequency, and measured the output of the ends. There was a drop of about 67% of the optical power. When a single laser was used it emitted 94% of the input optical power.

When we used a higher transmission power on one end, the lower transmission power dropped by 83% while the higher power dropped by 51%. using 1.3 and 1.9 lasers (offset wave lengths) resulted in the same losses. (the experiment was deigned to show that bi-directional communications in fiber will not function)

Either the photons collided and caused scattering attenuation or there is still a very low understanding of photon energy process. Given that the QAM transmission was totally destroyed, for either end, its a good bet that it is a collision related event.

QM theory shown extremely questionable by observable experiment. Even if all matter radiates in all directions the temperature (power-output) of the matter, matters. The energy of a colder object reaching the other hotter object is also very questionable.

Photons don't interact with each other. Photons do interact with matter.

Fiber optics do constrain light by internal reflection, although not perfectly. There is obviously a chance that two photons hitting the fiber optic matter simultaneously will result in a different outcome than simple reflection.

Someone here posted up an interesting experiment showing two laser beams coming off a surface as one reasonably coherent stream of light that was a different colour than the original two lasers.

Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what? General principles are seldom seen in reality without confounding factors obscuring them..

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE and we are woefully ignorant of the process/interactions. This general principal of QM is shown incorrect but you want to claim that it has no effect... the babbling and going round in circles is pointless.

"Weird stuff happens when you play with light, so what?"

This is priceless...^^^^^ Now how a photon does or does not react is of no consequence....

 

[SSDD]

You are still stalling. You still haven't given me a reason why you think this is wrong:

Because we don't know..and the likelihood of you being the one to accurately describe what hundreds of years of physics has yet to scratch the surface of is pretty slim. your explanation didn't even begin to describe why energy transfers, much less the fundamental mechanism for how...all you said was that energy moves...we already know that.

But again...it is interesting to see what passes for a description of the fundamental mechanism of energy movement in your mind...it is always interesting to see how little people who fancy themselves as intelligent actually know.

Your belief that science understands the underlying mechanism of energy exchange is just one more example of you not being able to differentiate between fact and fiction.