Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Wuwei]

Not bright enough to say what you mean.

That word has over 20 definitions and you pick one that is irrelevant, just so you can snarl?

you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce. (I'm assuming by "bounce" you mean an elastic collision where atoms neither give nor receive any energy when contacting that surface.)

Since infrared radiation can not warm air, then conduction would be the only means...

Yes of course we are talking about conduction.
You are stalling. Let me ask again:
How do you think a cold gas adjacent to a hotter surface can get heat from that surface since you said that the molecules in the gas just bounce (i.e. elastic collision.)

 

[IanC]

So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.

You are observing photons as you read this.

Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.

Is light real? Is the electric force real? How about magnets?

 

[SSDD]

Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.

If you can't see photons, maybe your seeing eye dog can.

So you now claim that you can "see" photons? you get more ridiculous all the time.

 

[SSDD]

So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.

You are observing photons as you read this.

Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.

Is light real? Is the electric force real? How about magnets?

\

Of course...but that doesn't make photons real...photons are theoretical particles and will remain so till such time as we get a handle on the fundamental nature of light.

 

[IanC]

So no one observed a photon...and you were once again having a problem differentiating between reality and fiction. got it.

You are observing photons as you read this.

Really? Got any conclusive evidence that photons even exist?...I am sure that the scientific world would be very interested to see it since as far as they are concerned, photons are still theoretical particles...

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real...and what is not.

Is light real? Is the electric force real? How about magnets?

\

Of course...but that doesn't make photons real...photons are theoretical particles and will remain so till such time as we get a handle on the fundamental nature of light.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

 

[flacaltenn]

That's the current theory.

It was also directly observed.

Really? Someone observed a photon? You mean that they are no longer theoretical particles? Where is the paper?

Refer to not being able to differentiate between what is real and what is not.

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked. I've designed dozens of long integrating intensified or cooled camera systems for observing material luminescence. Like for tagging proteins to "glow" by methods of chemically tagging.

Literally in a HOLY DARK chamber, I can count the number of photons given off. Even SEE them accumulating. At rates of intercept down to a couple thousand per second.

So yeah.. Photons are containers of Electro-Magnetic energy which have an intrinsic optical frequency until they are absorbed by a material and converted to something else. Like heat or electric charge.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course...but that doesn't make photons real...photons are theoretical particles and will remain so till such time as we get a handle on the fundamental nature of light.

In some old experiments like the photoelectric effect, there was a strangely discrete property of light. Plank also noticed that experimental black body measurements made more sense if the emission of light in the math were parceled into discrete quantities. Also when photomultipliers are exposed to extreme low light conditions they will not give a continuous low current output, but they respond with sharp current spikes. It is as though the low light was not a continuous wave but came in packets.

Is this agent of discreteness real? What does "real" actually mean with something like that. What really matters is that all the experiments and mathematics and predictions actually work very nicely when that agent is assumed. The more senstive experiments and theories fail miserably without the agent.

The agent of this experimental phenomenon was given the name "photon." Yes you can argue that photons are theoretical and will remain so. Even if you presume the agent is not real nor a meaningful entity in nature, you would not be able to predict and explain nature without it.

Real or not, "photon" is just a word that is attached to the agent that is necessary to explain experiments and allow theory to correctly predict outcomes. If you don't abide by that agent, your theory will fail miserably.

 

[Wuwei]

So you now claim that you can "see" photons? you get more ridiculous all the time.

BTW cockroaches, like photomultipliers, can detect single "photons."

 

[flacaltenn]

So you now claim that you can "see" photons? you get more ridiculous all the time.

BTW cockroaches, like photomultipliers, can detect single "photons."

Maybe I'm working too hard to tune cameras. Should investigate a cockroach approach to low light detection..

 

[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....

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE

Is that how covailent bonds shield themselves from cooler photons?

Can gravity bend the path of a photon?

That's the current theory.

So gravity affects these particles.. Why wouldnt the gravity within molecules also act the same way?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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....

This IS the point... Those bits of matter known as photons DO COLLIDE

Is that how covailent bonds shield themselves from cooler photons?

Can gravity bend the path of a photon?

That's the current theory.

So gravity affects these particles.. Why wouldnt the gravity within molecules also act the same way?

Gravity within a molecule deflects cooler photons away?

Are you off your covailent bond theory?

 

[SSDD]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

 

[Wuwei]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

Yes, flacaltenn, you are counting "theoretical constructs". That's an awkward 7 syllable phrase. There must be a simpler word for that.

Heed SSDD. Don't be fooled by observable, measurable, testable, repeatable theoretical constructs.

 

[SSDD]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

Yes, flacaltenn, you are counting "theoretical constructs". That's an awkward 7 syllable phrase. There must be a simpler word for that.

Heed SSDD. Don't be fooled by observable, measurable, testable, repeatable theoretical constructs.

Laughing about your ignorance is hardly a rational argument...the science you worship still calls photons theoretical particles...like it or not, their existence is far from proven. It must suck to not be able to tell what is real and what is not.

 

[Wuwei]

Laughing about your ignorance is hardly a rational argument...the science you worship still calls photons theoretical particles...like it or not, their existence is far from proven. It must suck to not be able to tell what is real and what is not.

What me worry? Reread post #567 above.

 

[flacaltenn]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

Yes, flacaltenn, you are counting "theoretical constructs". That's an awkward 7 syllable phrase. There must be a simpler word for that.

Heed SSDD. Don't be fooled by observable, measurable, testable, repeatable theoretical constructs.

I'm going to contact the FDA today.. And ask them to withdraw approval for four different measurement devices. On the basis that someone on the Internet told me that photons were just a figment of my imagination. And as such -- the operation of such machines is simply an exercise in faith...

Probably means I have to refund close to $250,000 in development fees that I was paid. BUT --

 

[flacaltenn]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

Well maybe it's a lucky guess, but we're actually creating the generation scheme for those photons by bombarding the protein materials with OTHER photons of a particular color to excite the generation.. Too many moving parts involving photons to be "just beginner's luck"...

 

[flacaltenn]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

I CREATED the instrumention.. Maybe I'm a lucky fool..

 

[flacaltenn]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

Yes, flacaltenn, you are counting "theoretical constructs". That's an awkward 7 syllable phrase. There must be a simpler word for that.

Heed SSDD. Don't be fooled by observable, measurable, testable, repeatable theoretical constructs.

theoretical constructs == hallucinatory sparkly thingies ???

 

[IanC]

Photon counting is one my specialties. Glad you asked.

I am sure that you are counting something that you are calling photons...but at present, photons remain theoretical constructs...don't be fooled by your instrumentation

I CREATED the instrumention.. Maybe I'm a lucky fool..

Good for you! Improving technology is a boon for humanity.