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

[wirebender]

Sad,

the only significant melting occurring is the meltdown by you cultists.

Poor guy doesn't get the fact that his inability to actually discuss the topic in terms other than cut and paste coupled with his steady proclaimations that he is the smartest guy in the room is reasonable symptomatic evidence of the Dunning - Kruger effect in himself. Of course victims of the condition aren't capable of seeing it in themselves. They are generally to busy proclaiming their own superiority while demonstrating all the while that they don't grasp whatever topic they believe they are the best at to see what everyone else sees.

 

[wirebender]

Sad, you can only present flap yap, and no evidence for your position.

I already did rocks. To bad the math was so far over your head.

 

[Old Rocks]

That was meant for Uncensored, but applys equally to you.

 

[wirebender]

You stupid ass. Why do you make statements so easy to falsifiy? Shine a flashlight in a mirror. Does the reflected light illuminate the flashlight? Lordy, lordy!!!!!!

No it doesn't rocks. Every time you speak you make clear how poor your understanding of the topic is. Of course the light reflected back from the mirror does not illuminate the light. And of course, you are not nearly bright enough to realize that when you look at the light reflecting back to the rim of the flashlight, that that doesn't constitue reflecting back to the light.

The fillament is the light source rocks and it is burning at something like 5000 degrees. No light reflected back from the mirror reaches the fillament. If it did, tghe fillament would absorb the energy and in turn burn brighter which would reflect back more light to be absorbed which would cause the fillament to burn brighter...and so on and so on in an endless feedback loop.

Second law and the law of conservation of energy rocks. Learn them and what they mean.

And try real hard to think for just a minute or two before you speak. Or do you just crave public humiliation at my hands?

 

[IanC]

yes some of the reflected light would bounce back directly at the filament. once a photon is created it follows a straight line until it interacts with matter. if the first matter it encounters is the filament so be it. there would be no 'feedback loop' of any consequence because very little would be exactly relected.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That was meant for Uncensored, but applys equally to you.

Which one is you?

 

[RollingThunder]

You stupid ass. Why do you make statements so easy to falsifiy? Shine a flashlight in a mirror. Does the reflected light illuminate the flashlight? Lordy, lordy!!!!!!

No it doesn't rocks. Every time you speak you make clear how poor your understanding of the topic is. Of course the light reflected back from the mirror does not illuminate the light. And of course, you are not nearly bright enough to realize that when you look at the light reflecting back to the rim of the flashlight, that that doesn't constitue reflecting back to the light.

The fillament(sic) is the light source rocks and it is burning at something like 5000 degrees. No light reflected back from the mirror reaches the fillament. If it did, tghe fillament would absorb the energy and in turn burn brighter which would reflect back more light to be absorbed which would cause the fillament(sic) to burn brighter...and so on and so on in an endless feedback loop.

Second law and the law of conservation of energy rocks. Learn them and what they mean.

And try real hard to think for just a minute or two before you speak. Or do you just crave public humiliation at my hands?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......you're sooo funny, wiredwrong. Your knowledge of science is practically nonexistent but you're too much a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect to be capable of recognizing that. You humiliate yourself with your idiotic misunderstanding of basic science every time you post.

 

[wirebender]

yes some of the reflected light would bounce back directly at the filament. once a photon is created it follows a straight line until it interacts with matter. if the first matter it encounters is the filament so be it. there would be no 'feedback loop' of any consequence because very little would be exactly relected.

Sorry Ian, but it simply doesn't happen. If any photons radiated back to the fillament, if even one photon radiated back to the fillament and was absorbed, that would represent an increase in energy above and beyonde that which it was getting from its energy source. That, in turn would cause it to radiate more than it was getting from its energy source. Even on a small scale, it represents a violation of the law of conservation of energy.


Tell me Ian, do you believe that two EM fields can interact? Do you believe it is possible for one EM field to interfere with another? Do you believe it is possible for one EM field to weaken another? Do you believe that is possible for one EM field to cancel out another? Do you believe it is possible for light waves to cancel each other out? Simple questions, a yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[wirebender]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......you're sooo funny, wiredwrong. Your knowledge of science is practically nonexistent but you're too much a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect to be capable of recognizing that. You humiliate yourself with your idiotic misunderstanding of basic science every time you post.

I can't help but notice that you have nothing of importance to say about anythng I have said. If I am mistaken, by all means, tell me where I have missed the boat. You might start by naming any physical law that I have misapplied.

The number of questions outstanding that you have been unable to answer is growing. You still haven't been able to answer the first. In case you forgot, I will ask again.

Which pyisical law supports and predicts a greenouse effect as described by warmists?

 

[IanC]

yes some of the reflected light would bounce back directly at the filament. once a photon is created it follows a straight line until it interacts with matter. if the first matter it encounters is the filament so be it. there would be no 'feedback loop' of any consequence because very little would be exactly relected.

Sorry Ian, but it simply doesn't happen. If any radiated back to the fillament, even one radiated back to the fillament and was absorbed as it must be, that would represent an increase in energy above and beyone that which it was getting from its energy source. That, in turn would cause it to radiate more than it was getting from its energy source. Even on a small scale, it represents a violation of the law of conservation of energy.Tell me Ian, do you believe that two EM fields can interact? Do you believe it is possible for one EM field to interfere with another? Do you believe it is possible for one EM field to weaken another? Do you believe that is possible for one EM field to cancel out another? Do you believe it is possible for light waves to cancel each other out? Simple questions, a yes or no answer will suffice.

one photon out, the same photon back, a minute amount of momentum exchanged that cancels out. how is that creating extra energy?EM fields? sure I think you can calculate the electric or magnetic force exerted on a particle of MATTER in the field. what does that have to do with the types of photons we have been discussing? EM fields only interact with matter not with other photons. do light waves cancel out? an esoteric question that needs specific conditions to be met. perfectly allined phase opposite direction opposite identical wavelength with a properly positioned detector (matter) might give a reading that suggests they cancel out. quantum mechanics is odd that way. in 99.999+ percent of the time it has no bearing on reality. when EM fields 'peter out', to quote your interesting vernacular, it is simply due to the inverse distance squared rule that is so common in physics. we can calculate the residual effects of EM fields but do you have some reference that says the photons of the field are actually destroyed somewhere in the absence of matter? just because we know the direction of the enegy in the combined fields that doesnt mean we know how MANY photons it took to achieve it. two opposite pushes cancel out, why are you sure they disappeared before they interacted with matter?

 

[gslack]

Maybe this will help..

The Physics Classroom

I started reading it. Hopefully I learn something.

 

[Old Rocks]

Basic, but a very good start.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Maybe this will help..

The Physics Classroom

I started reading it. Hopefully I learn something.

My friend, me too!!! I started On Monday and now almost ready to go into section 4 sometime tomarrow. Good stuff!!! Did all the math and will keep doing it all.

Yes, I'm going to read the entire 13 sections.

 

[gslack]

Basic, but a very good start.

Socks, you are utterly and completely so full of shit. MENSA boy, you have repeatedly shown you lack even barest knowledge of any higher mathematical concepts, and even less ability to even fake it like you try to do daily.

You are a complete fake. A fake ecomentalist (thats an eco-nut), a fake MENSA candidate, and a fake person. Now you are going to fake some physics knowledge too?

Stick with cut and pasting from greenpeace and your eco-blogs...

 

[gslack]

Maybe this will help..

The Physics Classroom

I started reading it. Hopefully I learn something.

My friend, me too!!! I started On Monday and now almost ready to go into section 4 sometime tomarrow. Good stuff!!! Did all the math and will keep doing it all.

Yes, I'm going to read the entire 13 sections.

Yeah I'm sure some of you younger and sharper folk will finish it before I get done with chapter 1..

 

[wirebender]

one photon out, the same photon back, a minute amount of momentum exchanged that cancels out. how is that creating extra energy?EM fields?

Because the light source would absorb it and the light would therfore re emitt it which would have the light necessarily emitting more light than it could produce from its energy source. That can't happen Ian. The law of conservation of energy prevents it. Energy can't be reused unless some work is performed in order to get that energy back into the system. You might look here:

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Clip: Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

sure I think you can calculate the electric or magnetic force exerted on a particle of MATTER in the field.

What "matter" in the field are you talking about?

EM fields only interact with matter not with other photons.

So are you saying that one EM field can't interfere with, diminish, or cancel out another EM field? This is a simple yes or no question Ian, appeals to complexity don't alter the answer.

do light waves cancel out? an esoteric question that needs specific conditions to be met.

Nothing esoteric about it. You can see it happen nearly anytime you like. I understand your reluctance to answer the question since you have been so obtuse in your unwillingness to accept what is happening in EM fields and I am sorry that I had to lead you here, but I didn't see any other way to get you to this point.

perfectly allined phase opposite direction opposite identical wavelength with a properly positioned detector (matter) might give a reading that suggests they cancel out.

Really? It takes all that? What if I say that you can see light waves cancel each other out with a child's soap bubble?

Bubble Colors

quantum mechanics is odd that way. in 99.999+ percent of the time it has no bearing on reality.

I am not dabbling in esoteric quantum mechanics Ian and I would wager that seeing light waves cancel each other out on a child's soap bubble relates very well to reality.

when EM fields 'peter out', to quote your interesting vernacular, it is simply due to the inverse distance squared rule that is so common in physics.

Just trying to speak in terms that everyone reading will understand. It doesn't do any good to talk over peoples heads if you want them to actually understand what you are saying. If, you acknowledge that an EM field can dimish over distance, what happens to the photons that make up the fied if, as you say, photons just go on forever till they hit some matter.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the pretty explicit definitions of quantum, photon, and electromagnetic radiation that I have provided you with. Why might that be?

we can calculate the residual effects of EM fields but do you have some reference that says the photons of the field are actually destroyed somewhere in the absence of matter?

I have been trying to avoid going here, because you are confused enough already but you don't seem to quite understand or be aware of the fact that photons are theoretical particles. We don't even know for sure that they exist. When dealing with electromagnetisim, sometimes calculations require that you treat EM energy as particles (photons) in order for the calculation to make sense with observable phenomena, and sometimes calculations for the same EM energy must treat the EM energy as a wave in order to make sense with observations. Sometimes it doesn't matter which form you give the energy and sometimes you must treat it as both particle and wave. None of these may be correct but it is just what has to be done in an effort to make the calculations make sense in the real world.

You speak of photons as if we have looked at them under a microscope and know for sure that they exist and are sure of exactly how they behave. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not true.

In the calculations showing the diminishment of an EM field over distance, the EM energy must be assumed to be a wave because if it s particles then diminishment over distance, which we know to be true via observation doesn't make sense with what we think we know about photons if they exist.

just because we know the direction of the enegy in the combined fields that doesnt mean we know how MANY photons it took to achieve it. two opposite pushes cancel out, why are you sure they disappeared before they interacted with matter?

The bottom line Ian, is that we don't even know IF it took any photons to achieve it.

If the waves are cancelled out in the absence of matter, where are the photons. When we measure an EM field, theoretically we are measuring photons since theoretically, photons are what the field is made of. When we measure two EM fields cancelling each other out, that is a real phenomenon, it is happening, but if they are cancelled out, and haven't encountered some object, where are the photons?

As I said, sometimes you have to assume the energy is a wave in order for what you are observing to make sense and sometimes you have to assume it is particles in order for it to make sense. Neither or both may be correct. But you know that if the EM field covers enough distance its strength will diminish. Are you saying that the field is photons which must interact with matter in order to be destroyed in the atmosphere and then changes to a wave which can diminish over distance with photons apparently winking out without hitting some solid object once it leaves the atmosphere? What about EM fields that we see diminishing over distance within the atmosphere?

You have this image in your mind Ian that doesn't jibe with the laws of physics, particularly the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. The physical laws are the primary determinant of whether the EM energy is treated as a wave or as particles because it doesn't make sense to do a calculation that results in a violation of the laws of physics.

 

[wirebender]

Basic, but a very good start.

You are laughable rocks. You can't even do basic Stefan - Boltzman equations but are critiquing physics courses as if you grasped the concepts? I am laughing right out loud in your face.

 

[IanC]

one photon out, the same photon back, a minute amount of momentum exchanged that cancels out. how is that creating extra energy?EM fields?

please be careful when editing my quotes. in context it is obvious that "em fields?" is a reference to the next question of yours that I was responding to

Because the light source would absorb it and the light would therfore re emitt it which would have the light necessarily emitting more light than it could produce from its energy source. That can't happen Ian. The law of conservation of energy prevents it. Energy can't be reused unless some work is performed in order to get that energy back into the system. You might look here:

Second Law of Thermodynamics
there is work being done, entropy is increasing. there is no reason why the photon released and reflected cannot return to the filament, or even the fantastically remote chance of returning to the exact atom that released it, if that atom was in a state that capable of absorbing it
Clip: Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

sure I think you can calculate the electric or magnetic force exerted on a particle of MATTER in the field.

What "matter" in the field are you talking about?
photons only interact with matter, this is such a basic concept I cant understand why you argue about it.


So are you saying that one EM field can't interfere with, diminish, or cancel out another EM field? This is a simple yes or no question Ian, appeals to complexity don't alter the answer.
we add up the matrix values of the fields and calculate the residual effect. that does not mean the individual photons from the different fields have disappeared



Nothing esoteric about it. You can see it happen nearly anytime you like. I understand your reluctance to answer the question since you have been so obtuse in your unwillingness to accept what is happening in EM fields and I am sorry that I had to lead you here, but I didn't see any other way to get you to this point.




Really? It takes all that? What if I say that you can see light waves cancel each other out with a child's soap bubble?soap bubbles are not matter?

Bubble Colors



I am not dabbling in esoteric quantum mechanics Ian and I would wager that seeing light waves cancel each other out on a child's soap bubble relates very well to reality.



Just trying to speak in terms that everyone reading will understand. It doesn't do any good to talk over peoples heads if you want them to actually understand what you are saying. If, you acknowledge that an EM field can dimish over distance, what happens to the photons that make up the fied if, as you say, photons just go on forever till they hit some matter.
the force diminishes according to distance squared. it is easy to visualize this. a piece of paper blocks out a large angle of light close to the light source than it would further away, or conversely you would need a piece of paper four times as large to block out the same angle at twice the distance. perhaps it is the fact that fields are made up of quantums that is confusing you. at some point (related to Planck's distance) you cannot fill in between anymore because there is no available quantum state.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring the pretty explicit definitions of quantum, photon, and electromagnetic radiation that I have provided you with. Why might that be?
I have no problems with the definitions, but they dont support some of the specific things that you are claiming

we can calculate the residual effects of EM fields but do you have some reference that says the photons of the field are actually destroyed somewhere in the absence of matter?

I have been trying to avoid going here, because you are confused enough already but you don't seem to quite understand or be aware of the fact that photons are theoretical particles. We don't even know for sure that they exist. When dealing with electromagnetisim, sometimes calculations require that you treat EM energy as particles (photons) in order for the calculation to make sense with observable phenomena, and sometimes calculations for the same EM energy must treat the EM energy as a wave in order to make sense with observations. Sometimes it doesn't matter which form you give the energy and sometimes you must treat it as both particle and wave. None of these may be correct but it is just what has to be done in an effort to make the calculations make sense in the real world. please re-read Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. photons just probabilities until they are 'put to the test' by a particle of matter.

You speak of photons as if we have looked at them under a microscope and know for sure that they exist and are sure of exactly how they behave. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not true.

In the calculations showing the diminishment of an EM field over distance, the EM energy must be assumed to be a wave because if it s particles then diminishment over distance, which we know to be true via observation doesn't make sense with what we think we know about photons if they exist.

just because we know the direction of the enegy in the combined fields that doesnt mean we know how MANY photons it took to achieve it. two opposite pushes cancel out, why are you sure they disappeared before they interacted with matter?

The bottom line Ian, is that we don't even know IF it took any photons to achieve it.

If the waves are cancelled out in the absence of matter, where are the photons. When we measure an EM field, theoretically we are measuring photons since theoretically, photons are what the field is made of. When we measure two EM fields cancelling each other out, that is a real phenomenon, it is happening, but if they are cancelled out, and haven't encountered some object, where are the photons? still there until they interact with matter

As I said, sometimes you have to assume the energy is a wave in order for what you are observing to make sense and sometimes you have to assume it is particles in order for it to make sense. Neither or both may be correct. But you know that if the EM field covers enough distance its strength will diminish. Are you saying that the field is photons which must interact with matter in order to be destroyed in the atmosphere and then changes to a wave which can diminish over distance with photons apparently winking out without hitting some solid object once it leaves the atmosphere? What about EM fields that we see diminishing over distance within the atmosphere? I am not here to argue complex field equations. I am here to point out that you are confused about the basic first principles

You have this image in your mind Ian that doesn't jibe with the laws of physics, particularly the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy. The physical laws are the primary determinant of whether the EM energy is treated as a wave or as particles because it doesn't make sense to do a calculation that results in a violation of the laws of physics.

and what I have said doesnt violate any basic laws. you take the basic laws and apply them to incorrect conditions. by your understanding people couldnt be here because of entropy

 

[wirebender]

there is work being done, entropy is increasing. there is no reason why the photon released and reflected cannot return to the filament, or even the fantastically remote chance of returning to the exact atom that released it, if that atom was in a state that capable of absorbing it

There is no work being done. Emission and absorption and re emission do not constitute work.
we add up the matrix values of the fields and calculate the residual effect. that does not mean the individual photons from the different fields have disappeared

we add up the matrix values of the fields and calculate the residual effect. that does not mean the individual photons from the different fields have disappeared

Again, appeals to complexity do not answer the question. Where do the photons go?

soap bubbles are not matter?

Are you saying that two light waves can not cancel each other out without the involvement of matter. Go ahead and say that you don't think it can be done so we can settle once and for all that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Before you say "no, light waves can't cancel each other out without the involvement of matter, I suggest that you do just a quick bit of research on the term optical interferometry with careful emphasis on destructive interference.

The bottom line is that you were dead wrong in your belief that photons can not be destroyed without hitting matter. Your belief that a photon is necessarily this little thing that goes zipping about the universe till it hits something is what led you to this false belief.

the force diminishes according to distance squared. it is easy to visualize this. a piece of paper blocks out a large angle of light close to the light source than it would further away, or conversely you would need a piece of paper four times as large to block out the same angle at twice the distance. perhaps it is the fact that fields are made up of quantums that is confusing you. at some point (related to Planck's distance) you cannot fill in between anymore because there is no available quantum state.

You have painted yourself into a corner with your refusal to accept the well known facts regarding EM fields Ian. Talking sideways is not going to extricate you. You know very well that if you fire an EM field in a vaccum devoid of matter, as distance increases, the magnitude of that field will diminish. No sheet of paper necessary. And it is you who doesn't seem to grasp what quantums are. I have already provided you with the definition of a photon as the quantum of an EM field numerous times. Your refusal to accept the fact does not alter the fact in the least.

I have no problems with the definitions, but they dont support some of the specific things that you are claiming

They support precisely what I am saying. They support exactly what I am saying. It is what you are saying that the definitions do not support. Your claim that photons go on till they hit some bit of matter does not jibe with the definiton of photon as the smallest possible unit of energy in an EM field which most certainly does not require matter in order to dissipate, or be interfered with, or be completely cancelled out. Photon as the smallest possible bit of energy in an EM field agrees perfectly with what I am saying as they are nothing more than energy that gets expended working against another field of greater mangitude.

please re-read Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. photons just probabilities until they are 'put to the test' by a particle of matter.

Yeah, I am familiar with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle but it doesn't answer wave particle duality which takes us right back to my argument.

still there until they interact with matter

Really? The wave is gone and the wave is made of photons but the photons are still there? Where is the wave and how do the photons which are the "stuff" the wave was made of continue to exist if the wave is gone?

I am not here to argue complex field equations. I am here to point out that you are confused about the basic first principles

Well, one of us is confused. I proved my position mathematically. Lets see your proof or point out where I made a mathematical error or misapplied a physical law.

and what I have said doesnt violate any basic laws. you take the basic laws and apply them to incorrect conditions. by your understanding people couldnt be here because of entropy[/QUOTE]

Entropy is not work. If anything, entropy is the potential for work being lost. Your ideas that an energy source can absorb energy it radiated and had radiated back to it is simply not physically possible. It is the stuff of perpetual motion. It is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and to happen would require that energy spontaneously move from a cool object to a warmer object and a violation of the law of conservation of energy because in absorbing energy it has already radiated, it would necessarily be able to radiate more energy that it gets from its energy source.

Sorry you can't see it. I have done the math on this board in public and to date, you have not pointed out any error on my part. You have done nothing more than have a tantrum claiming that I am wrong while you remain completely unable to prove me wrong. Where is my math error or misapplied physical law?

 

[IanC]

well wirebender, I spent some time googling around yesterday and I found nothing to support your claim that photons interact with each other in the absence of matter. the closest I could come was a theoretical interaction with a graviton and a relativist energy photon decaying into particles. there were discussions about laser-antilaser that would just disrupt the (mirrors). or the difficulties of finetuning telescopes for interferometry. but nowhere did I find anything about EM fields decreasing by anything but the inverse square law or interaction with matter. there are interesting wave functions no doubt, and messy calculations galore but nothing that supports your rather queer understanding of physics. to specifically address your 2nd law issue with the photon bouncing back to its origin- there is nothing to preclude it. the law deals with large numbers of interactions. you cant make a perfect mirror so some photons are 'lost'. the law only deals with the overall result, single interactions are random but you cant get all heads or all tails in the quantum world. a poor example is radioactivity, you cant predict which atom will split but you can predict how many out of a known group.I am looking forward to your reply. best regards, Ian