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

[gslack]

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

Ian, I just googled the exact phrase "do photons interact with each other" and found multiple references to it.. Turns out there are many many references to it and the manner at which it can and does happen as well as how.

I would post a list of the top 10 or so but we know you hate google lists from the way you acted recently. But I think a few links wouldn't hurt.

Re: Why don’t photons collide, interfere or react with one another?

Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do photons collide with each other like any other massive object? [Archive] - Physics Forums

I will cite the briefest example from Wikkipedia..

Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two-photon physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics for the interactions between two photons. If the energy in the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Experiments
2 Processes
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Experiments

Two-photon physics can be studied with high-energy particle accelerators, where the accelerated particles are not the photons themselves but charged particles that will radiate photons. The most significant studies so far were performed at the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP) at CERN. If the transverse momentum transfer is large, one or both electrons can be deflected enough to be detected; this is called tagging. The other particles that are created in the interaction are tracked by large detectors to reconstruct the physics of the interaction.
[edit]Processes

From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks. Thus, two-photon physics experiments can be used as ways to study the photon structure, or what is "inside" the photon.


The photon fluctuates into a fermion-antifermion pair.


Creation of a fermion-antifermion pair through the direct two-photon interaction. These drawings are Feynman diagrams.
We distinguish three interaction processes:
Direct or pointlike: The photon couples directly to a quark inside the target photon. If a lepton-antilepton pair is created, this process involves only quantum electrodynamics (QED), but if a quark-antiquark pair is created, it involves both QED and perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
Single resolved: The quark pair of the target photon form a vector meson. The probing photon couples to a constituent of this meson.
Double resolved: Both target and probe photon have formed a vector meson. This results in an interaction between two hadrons.
For the latter two cases, the scale of the interaction is such as the strong coupling constant is large. This is called Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) and has to be modelled in non-perturbative QCD.

It wasn't hard to find those examples were on the first page and chosen based on where they came from and their ease of use.

 

[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

Ian, I just googled the exact phrase "do photons interact with each other" and found multiple references to it.. Turns out there are many many references to it and the manner at which it can and does happen as well as how.

I would post a list of the top 10 or so but we know you hate google lists from the way you acted recently. But I think a few links wouldn't hurt.

Re: Why don’t photons collide, interfere or react with one another?

Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do photons collide with each other like any other massive object? [Archive] - Physics Forums

I will cite the briefest example from Wikkipedia..

Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two-photon physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics for the interactions between two photons. If the energy in the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Experiments
2 Processes
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Experiments

Two-photon physics can be studied with high-energy particle accelerators, where the accelerated particles are not the photons themselves but charged particles that will radiate photons. The most significant studies so far were performed at the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP) at CERN. If the transverse momentum transfer is large, one or both electrons can be deflected enough to be detected; this is called tagging. The other particles that are created in the interaction are tracked by large detectors to reconstruct the physics of the interaction.
[edit]Processes

From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks. Thus, two-photon physics experiments can be used as ways to study the photon structure, or what is "inside" the photon.


The photon fluctuates into a fermion-antifermion pair.


Creation of a fermion-antifermion pair through the direct two-photon interaction. These drawings are Feynman diagrams.
We distinguish three interaction processes:
Direct or pointlike: The photon couples directly to a quark inside the target photon. If a lepton-antilepton pair is created, this process involves only quantum electrodynamics (QED), but if a quark-antiquark pair is created, it involves both QED and perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
Single resolved: The quark pair of the target photon form a vector meson. The probing photon couples to a constituent of this meson.
Double resolved: Both target and probe photon have formed a vector meson. This results in an interaction between two hadrons.
For the latter two cases, the scale of the interaction is such as the strong coupling constant is large. This is called Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) and has to be modelled in non-perturbative QCD.

It wasn't hard to find those examples were on the first page and chosen based on where they came from and their ease of use.

quote from your first citation-

{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.

quote from your second citation-

From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple.

I already noted this in my comment

no quote from the third source, it was just a message board that mentioned it peripherally

 

[IanC]

hahahahahaha. Im still laughing over the wiki article. two fantastically energetic photons (called gamma rays), if coherent and close together, sometimes exhibit a strange bit of quantum weirdness by creating a particle- antiparticle pair that can then interact with the remaining photon! hahahaha not many of us live in the biggest particle accelerator on earth. AND EVEN THEN THE PHOTON IS INTERACTING WITH MATTER!!!!

why do you put up links without reading them. it is very similar to that other occasion where you put up a handful of links to try and make konradv appear stupid. it actually makes you look incompetent when you try to refute something and fail miserably.

 

[SW2SILVER]

No, it doesn’t. I say so.

 

[gslack]

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

Ian, I just googled the exact phrase "do photons interact with each other" and found multiple references to it.. Turns out there are many many references to it and the manner at which it can and does happen as well as how.

I would post a list of the top 10 or so but we know you hate google lists from the way you acted recently. But I think a few links wouldn't hurt.

Re: Why don’t photons collide, interfere or react with one another?

Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do photons collide with each other like any other massive object? [Archive] - Physics Forums

I will cite the briefest example from Wikkipedia..



It wasn't hard to find those examples were on the first page and chosen based on where they came from and their ease of use.

quote from your first citation-

{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.

quote from your second citation-

From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple.

I already noted this in my comment

no quote from the third source, it was just a message board that mentioned it peripherally

Ian are you so desperate to be right you are now resorting to changing the meaning of terms????

IAn you have turned into a complete whiny little crybaby douchebag over this.. You said you had been googling all day and couldn't find anything on photons interacting with each other. I did one search and found several. Now you are going to pretend they did not say that or that they are somehow incorrect?

Before making an even bigger liar of yourself care to mention what that forum was?

A PHYSICS FORUM YOU IDIOT!!!!!!

You are utterly pathetic ian, you have lost respect and dignity all in the name of you being right.. Well FU Ian you aren't right, not even close... You are busted being a lair now as well... YOU ARE WRONG! Got it? Now go cry all you want to but ya made complete ass of yourself...

P.S. quote the full sentence next time Ian it makes you look like a bullshitter if you don't.. "{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.".. Where's the rest of that statement Ian? Its an incomplete one... Perhaps you left something off the end or the beginning that made it a complete thought or statement?

 

[gslack]

hahahahahaha. Im still laughing over the wiki article. two fantastically energetic photons (called gamma rays), if coherent and close together, sometimes exhibit a strange bit of quantum weirdness by creating a particle- antiparticle pair that can then interact with the remaining photon! hahahaha not many of us live in the biggest particle accelerator on earth. AND EVEN THEN THE PHOTON IS INTERACTING WITH MATTER!!!!

why do you put up links without reading them. it is very similar to that other occasion where you put up a handful of links to try and make konradv appear stupid. it actually makes you look incompetent when you try to refute something and fail miserably.

Ian you are being obtuse... You know it and I know it... We both know what the article said, it said that two photos can interact and gave cases and information as to how, and why.

So you were wrong and whats worse you lied about googling all day about it... Pathetic.. A liar and a weasel too..... Why not stop showing how much of a tantrum you can throw and try actually correcting wires math, or in the very least grow a spine and stop bullshitting already.

Tell me again about your "all day googling" and couldnt find anything on it.... BULSHIT!

BTW: did you follow the citations on the wikki page? NO? Well why not ? BECAUSE you flat knew better didn't you... What a dick... Care to enlighten us all here how it is that you can call a physics specific forum just a web forum in a matter of physics, a wikkipedia article talking expressly about two-particle physics citing scientific publications from universities as its source and an answer page from a Science website are all just so much nothing in your mind? Get over yourself genius you aren't in any position to call all of those wrong or ignorant... WOW your ego man! I know why not stop acting so brilliat and explain what is wrong with any of the answers or explanations on any of those links..... Oh I know because this isn't about whats true this is about you getting your pride hurt... LOL Ian its a web forum man, who gives a shit if you can't prove wires math wrong.. DO you really think it matters enough for you to make an ass of yourself over it be my guest.. But know this, you screwed up Ian , ya lied and got caught doing it big time. Ya did it intentionally and your attempts to pretend the links are nonsense when anyone who looked at them knows better is beyond pathetic...

 

[IanC]

hahahahahaha. Im still laughing over the wiki article. two fantastically energetic photons (called gamma rays), if coherent and close together, sometimes exhibit a strange bit of quantum weirdness by creating a particle- antiparticle pair that can then interact with the remaining photon! hahahaha not many of us live in the biggest particle accelerator on earth. AND EVEN THEN THE PHOTON IS INTERACTING WITH MATTER!!!!

why do you put up links without reading them. it is very similar to that other occasion where you put up a handful of links to try and make konradv appear stupid. it actually makes you look incompetent when you try to refute something and fail miserably.

Ian you are being obtuse... You know it and I know it... We both know what the article said, it said that two photos can interact and gave cases and information as to how, and why.

So you were wrong and whats worse you lied about googling all day about it... Pathetic.. A liar and a weasel too..... Why not stop showing how much of a tantrum you can throw and try actually correcting wires math, or in the very least grow a spine and stop bullshitting already.

Tell me again about your "all day googling" and couldnt find anything on it.... BULSHIT!

BTW: did you follow the citations on the wikki page? NO? Well why not ? BECAUSE you flat knew better didn't you... What a dick... Care to enlighten us all here how it is that you can call a physics specific forum just a web forum in a matter of physics, a wikkipedia article talking expressly about two-particle physics citing scientific publications from universities as its source and an answer page from a Science website are all just so much nothing in your mind? Get over yourself genius you aren't in any position to call all of those wrong or ignorant... WOW your ego man! I know why not stop acting so brilliat and explain what is wrong with any of the answers or explanations on any of those links..... Oh I know because this isn't about whats true this is about you getting your pride hurt... LOL Ian its a web forum man, who gives a shit if you can't prove wires math wrong.. DO you really think it matters enough for you to make an ass of yourself over it be my guest.. But know this, you screwed up Ian , ya lied and got caught doing it big time. Ya did it intentionally and your attempts to pretend the links are nonsense when anyone who looked at them knows better is beyond pathetic...

calm down and wipe the froth off your mouth gslack. why are you taking this whole thing personally?

I didnt say I spent the whole day googling, but I did spend 30 or 40 minutes. and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. I had forgotten how much fun it is to think about relativistic physics. I am sorry that you are offended that I am right but photons only interact with matter.

please feel free to post up some comments from that message board that you feel pertain to 'photons only interact with matter'. I admit I only skimmed and didnt find anything interesting. or you could post the whole sentence from the first site but seeing as it deals with two different coloured lasers going into an atom and a third colour coming out I dont really see how it can prove me wrong.

 

[IanC]

Ian, I just googled the exact phrase "do photons interact with each other" and found multiple references to it.. Turns out there are many many references to it and the manner at which it can and does happen as well as how.

I would post a list of the top 10 or so but we know you hate google lists from the way you acted recently. But I think a few links wouldn't hurt.

Re: Why don’t photons collide, interfere or react with one another?

Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do photons collide with each other like any other massive object? [Archive] - Physics Forums

I will cite the briefest example from Wikkipedia..



It wasn't hard to find those examples were on the first page and chosen based on where they came from and their ease of use.

quote from your first citation-


quote from your second citation-

From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple.

I already noted this in my comment

no quote from the third source, it was just a message board that mentioned it peripherally

Ian are you so desperate to be right you are now resorting to changing the meaning of terms????

IAn you have turned into a complete whiny little crybaby douchebag over this.. You said you had been googling all day and couldn't find anything on photons interacting with each other. I did one search and found several. Now you are going to pretend they did not say that or that they are somehow incorrect?

Before making an even bigger liar of yourself care to mention what that forum was?

A PHYSICS FORUM YOU IDIOT!!!!!!

You are utterly pathetic ian, you have lost respect and dignity all in the name of you being right.. Well FU Ian you aren't right, not even close... You are busted being a lair now as well... YOU ARE WRONG! Got it? Now go cry all you want to but ya made complete ass of yourself...

P.S. quote the full sentence next time Ian it makes you look like a bullshitter if you don't.. "{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.".. Where's the rest of that statement Ian? Its an incomplete one... Perhaps you left something off the end or the beginning that made it a complete thought or statement?

how exactly am I changing the meaning of terms? my statement was and is 'photons only interact with matter'. it appears to me that you have subtly changed my statement to 'two photons cant interact even in the presence of matter' and now believe you have proved me wrong. am I mistaken? do you have citations for photon interaction in the absence of matter?

 

[gslack]

hahahahahaha. Im still laughing over the wiki article. two fantastically energetic photons (called gamma rays), if coherent and close together, sometimes exhibit a strange bit of quantum weirdness by creating a particle- antiparticle pair that can then interact with the remaining photon! hahahaha not many of us live in the biggest particle accelerator on earth. AND EVEN THEN THE PHOTON IS INTERACTING WITH MATTER!!!!

why do you put up links without reading them. it is very similar to that other occasion where you put up a handful of links to try and make konradv appear stupid. it actually makes you look incompetent when you try to refute something and fail miserably.

Ian you are being obtuse... You know it and I know it... We both know what the article said, it said that two photos can interact and gave cases and information as to how, and why.

So you were wrong and whats worse you lied about googling all day about it... Pathetic.. A liar and a weasel too..... Why not stop showing how much of a tantrum you can throw and try actually correcting wires math, or in the very least grow a spine and stop bullshitting already.

Tell me again about your "all day googling" and couldnt find anything on it.... BULSHIT!

BTW: did you follow the citations on the wikki page? NO? Well why not ? BECAUSE you flat knew better didn't you... What a dick... Care to enlighten us all here how it is that you can call a physics specific forum just a web forum in a matter of physics, a wikkipedia article talking expressly about two-particle physics citing scientific publications from universities as its source and an answer page from a Science website are all just so much nothing in your mind? Get over yourself genius you aren't in any position to call all of those wrong or ignorant... WOW your ego man! I know why not stop acting so brilliat and explain what is wrong with any of the answers or explanations on any of those links..... Oh I know because this isn't about whats true this is about you getting your pride hurt... LOL Ian its a web forum man, who gives a shit if you can't prove wires math wrong.. DO you really think it matters enough for you to make an ass of yourself over it be my guest.. But know this, you screwed up Ian , ya lied and got caught doing it big time. Ya did it intentionally and your attempts to pretend the links are nonsense when anyone who looked at them knows better is beyond pathetic...

calm down and wipe the froth off your mouth gslack. why are you taking this whole thing personally?

I didnt say I spent the whole day googling, but I did spend 30 or 40 minutes. and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. I had forgotten how much fun it is to think about relativistic physics. I am sorry that you are offended that I am right but photons only interact with matter.

please feel free to post up some comments from that message board that you feel pertain to 'photons only interact with matter'. I admit I only skimmed and didnt find anything interesting. or you could post the whole sentence from the first site but seeing as it deals with two different coloured lasers going into an atom and a third colour coming out I dont really see how it can prove me wrong.

Lets start here:

"I didnt say I spent the whole day googling,.."

Really? And that changes what exactly? Whether you spent spent some time or 20-30 minutes, the point still remains you didn't because IF you had then your claim about not finding anything on it would have been a lie.. Either you are lying about what you found or about doing it at all so which is it?

"please feel free to post up some comments from that message board that you feel pertain to 'photons only interact with matter'."

No Ian, you do your own work for a change... Again the point is you claimed you couldn't find anything about wires claim of photons interacting with photons, that was your claim. Now I showed that it was really easy search and rendered multiple results. You were shown them and then you tried to dismiss them off-hand and try to pretend they were somehow less-than or unworthy of being taken seriously. You even went so far as to try and make asinine snide remarks as if they said or implied something ignorant enough to be considered funny. That was YOU trying to bullshit your way out of it.

BTW IAN: Ya said this.." I am sorry that you are offended that I am right but photons only interact with matter. " Kinda says it all doesn't it..

"calm down and wipe the froth off your mouth gslack. why are you taking this whole thing personally?"

Gee Ian why would I do that? You spent the last couple of days side attacking me and making little remarks about me... Ya think I overreacted? Well lets see... YOU LIED ABOUT MY LINKS AGAIN! YOU LIED ABOUT WHAT I SAID! YOU TRIED TO BULLSHIT YOUR WAY OUT OF IT! and now you try and pretend you meant no offense... I guess we and add spineless to your list of accomplishments now can't we...

Ian you got your pride hurt in a web forum and instead of manning up you turn into a deliberate bullshitter. Dude seriously... You spent posts just flaming me and now you try and pretend I'm taking this personally.. WOW! What a douchebag...

 

[gslack]

quote from your first citation-


quote from your second citation-

I already noted this in my comment

no quote from the third source, it was just a message board that mentioned it peripherally

Ian are you so desperate to be right you are now resorting to changing the meaning of terms????

IAn you have turned into a complete whiny little crybaby douchebag over this.. You said you had been googling all day and couldn't find anything on photons interacting with each other. I did one search and found several. Now you are going to pretend they did not say that or that they are somehow incorrect?

Before making an even bigger liar of yourself care to mention what that forum was?

A PHYSICS FORUM YOU IDIOT!!!!!!

You are utterly pathetic ian, you have lost respect and dignity all in the name of you being right.. Well FU Ian you aren't right, not even close... You are busted being a lair now as well... YOU ARE WRONG! Got it? Now go cry all you want to but ya made complete ass of yourself...

P.S. quote the full sentence next time Ian it makes you look like a bullshitter if you don't.. "{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.".. Where's the rest of that statement Ian? Its an incomplete one... Perhaps you left something off the end or the beginning that made it a complete thought or statement?

how exactly am I changing the meaning of terms? my statement was and is 'photons only interact with matter'. it appears to me that you have subtly changed my statement to 'two photons cant interact even in the presence of matter' and now believe you have proved me wrong. am I mistaken? do you have citations for photon interaction in the absence of matter?

Ian do you realize you spent all this time arguing about photons interacting only with matter, only to now try and change that to photons only interact in the presence of matter? Thats called changing the terms, you aren't this ignorant Ian so stop.. Its more posturing bullshit from you to try and avoid appearing wrong here. LOL

Thats is oldsocks style bullshit Bud!

 

[IanC]

Ian are you so desperate to be right you are now resorting to changing the meaning of terms????IAn you have turned into a complete whiny little crybaby douchebag over this.. You said you had been googling all day and couldn't find anything on photons interacting with each other. I did one search and found several. Now you are going to pretend they did not say that or that they are somehow incorrect?Before making an even bigger liar of yourself care to mention what that forum was?A PHYSICS FORUM YOU IDIOT!!!!!!You are utterly pathetic ian, you have lost respect and dignity all in the name of you being right.. Well FU Ian you aren't right, not even close... You are busted being a lair now as well... YOU ARE WRONG! Got it? Now go cry all you want to but ya made complete ass of yourself...P.S. quote the full sentence next time Ian it makes you look like a bullshitter if you don't.. "{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.".. Where's the rest of that statement Ian? Its an incomplete one... Perhaps you left something off the end or the beginning that made it a complete thought or statement?

how exactly am I changing the meaning of terms? my statement was and is 'photons only interact with matter'. it appears to me that you have subtly changed my statement to 'two photons cant interact even in the presence of matter' and now believe you have proved me wrong. am I mistaken? do you have citations for photon interaction in the absence of matter?

Ian do you realize you spent all this time arguing about photons interacting only with matter, only to now try and change that to photons only interact in the presence of matter? Thats called changing the terms, you aren't this ignorant Ian so stop.. Its more posturing bullshit from you to try and avoid appearing wrong here. LOLThats is oldsocks style bullshit Bud!

please specifically state how you think you have tripped me up.

I said wirebender was full of crap when he stated that EM fields could magically stop an IR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule from returning to earth. he then rambled about EM fields cancelling out each other. I then stated that the combined forces on a particle of matter would only the residual energy transfered but all the photons in all the fields were still there except the ones that had interacted on the particle. photons only interact with matter. they continue in a straight line at the speed of light at the same frequency except for very small adjustments for gravity and the expansion of the universe which are essentially nil for atmospheric times and distances. because wirebender continued to repeat the same nonsense about photons 'petering out' and such I asked him to give examples of photons interacting without matter. there should be lots of them, wirebender says it is an overwhelming effect going on around us all the time.

thats where you came in. your proof consisted of a case of finely tuned lasers pointed at a specific substance that reemitted a different colour laser. not exactly a common happenstance and it occured interacting with matter.

your next example involved a poorly understood and poorly measured rare event seen at relativistic energies at Cern Super Collider. apparently extremely high energy gamma rays in very close proximity can have one photon convert into a particle-antiparticle pair (huge energy levels are needed, think reverse atomic bomb) and the other photon interacts with one of the particles. again, not exactly day-to-day conditions.

your third example was a conversation on a message board. sorry, it was a PHYSICS message board. I dont remember it, it was boring and didnt catch my attention.

you'll have to excuse me if I dont see how your two examples pertain to my discussion with wirebender about the basic physics of IR radiation in the atmosphere. perhaps you could find some more mundane examples that dont involve energies high enough to create matter.

or not. I really dont care. you are just trying to obscure the issues.

 

[wirebender]

quote from your first citation-

{photons} do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium.

Exchange energy and momentum when in a medium. Interesting phrase. I believe you stated earlier that photons go about at the speed of light till they hit something. If two photons exchange momentum, it would seem that one would end up at something less than the speed of light.

And that word medium. What do you think that word might mean Ian? You obviously didn't bother to take a look but lets turn to the "M's" in the science dictionary.

medium - A substance that makes possible the transfer of energy from one location to another, especially through waves. For example, matter of sufficient density can be a medium for sound waves, which transfer mechanical energy. See more at wave.

So now lets look at the information under wave:

wave - A disturbance, oscillation, or vibration, either of a medium and moving through that medium (such as water and sound waves), or of some quantity with different values at different points in space, moving through space (such as electromagnetic waves or a quantum mechanical wave described by the wave function). See also longitudinal wave, transverse wave, wave function. See Note at refraction.

It seems, Ian, that an EM field is a medium and as you so aptly pointed out from Gslack's post, that photons can exchange momentum and energy within a medium.

You are just grasping at straws at this point Ian, looking for anything that you might torture into conforming with your faith. It isn't going to happen. I wouldn't have taken this position in the first place without having done more research than I am willing to admit to. Unlike you Ian, I spent as much time looking for problems with my position as I did in forming the position. I am a chess player and it serves no purpose to develop a beautiful strategy in your mind if the guy you are sitting across takes your queen with a pawn. You have taken your position based on faith and a gross misunderstanding of the nature of electromagnetic waves.

 

[wirebender]

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

Pretty basic stuff Ian. Gslack came up with support on his first try and you looked right at it and still didn't get it. EM fields are waves and photons can exchange energy within waves.

And Gslack has you on some very fundamental dishonesty in your treatment of the clip from his source. You really should have posted the entire quote and the passage after was equally relavent:


The simple answer to this question is that photons really do collide and interfere with each other they just do it very quickly and it is very difficult to detect. They do not scatter off each other however since they can only exchange energy and momentum when in a medium. I guess a simple explanation for this is that there is no particle present vacuum to mediate photon-photon interactions, or at least not one that we have detected yet.

The question of photon interaction always stimulates an interesting and usually heated debate. I have heard professional physicists arguing over this one and it usually comes down to people's definitions of what interaction exactly is. Paul Dirac, one of the fathers of quantum theory writes in his book entitled "Principles of Quantum Mechanics" (I am pretty sure it is this book - I don't have a copy on hand) that photons do not interact with each other. This is what is usually quoted in answer to this question. I, personally, think that this is quite wrong, but only since I can benefit from another 74 years worth of research since he wrote those words. I quote Einstein: "We are standing on the shoulders of giants". Dirac developed a new mathematical formulism for describing nature at the quantum mechanical level when quantum mechanics was at the developmental stage. He was certainly no idiot, just not in possession of all the facts in the 1920s and 30s.

Tell me Ian, is it really worth prostituting your credibility and intellect in order to hang on to some bit of luke warmer faith?

 

[wirebender]

I didnt say I spent the whole day googling, but I did spend 30 or 40 minutes. and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. I had forgotten how much fun it is to think about relativistic physics. I am sorry that you are offended that I am right but photons only interact with matter.

Sorry, but you aren't right. You pointed out that photons can exchange momentum and energy within a medium. EM fields just happen to be mediums.

 

[wirebender]

I said wirebender was full of crap when he stated that EM fields could magically stop an IR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule from returning to earth. he then rambled about EM fields cancelling out each other.

You said it a great many times but it appears that you are completely unable to point to any error on my part either mathematically, or mis applied physical laws. And I did not ramble and it is dishonest of you to characterize my statments as rambling. Your need to poison the well tells your need to convince yourself that you are right in the face of information in whch you can find no error.

And there is no doubt that EM fields can cancel each other out.

photons only interact with matter.

False statement.

I asked him to give examples of photons interacting without matter. there should be lots of them, wirebender says it is an overwhelming effect going on around us all the time.

Which I did.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lol

 

[wirebender]

Lol

Reduced to simply laughing like a monkey in a tree now rocks? If you believe, like Ian that EM fields can't cancel each other, or otherwise interfere with each other, by all means, lets hear your explanation as to how this can't happen.

If you believe like Ian that photons can't interact with anything but matter, by all means explain where the photons that make up an EM field go when fields cancel or reduce opposing fields.

 

[gslack]

how exactly am I changing the meaning of terms? my statement was and is 'photons only interact with matter'. it appears to me that you have subtly changed my statement to 'two photons cant interact even in the presence of matter' and now believe you have proved me wrong. am I mistaken? do you have citations for photon interaction in the absence of matter?

Ian do you realize you spent all this time arguing about photons interacting only with matter, only to now try and change that to photons only interact in the presence of matter? Thats called changing the terms, you aren't this ignorant Ian so stop.. Its more posturing bullshit from you to try and avoid appearing wrong here. LOLThats is oldsocks style bullshit Bud!

please specifically state how you think you have tripped me up.

I said wirebender was full of crap when he stated that EM fields could magically stop an IR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule from returning to earth. he then rambled about EM fields cancelling out each other. I then stated that the combined forces on a particle of matter would only the residual energy transfered but all the photons in all the fields were still there except the ones that had interacted on the particle. photons only interact with matter. they continue in a straight line at the speed of light at the same frequency except for very small adjustments for gravity and the expansion of the universe which are essentially nil for atmospheric times and distances. because wirebender continued to repeat the same nonsense about photons 'petering out' and such I asked him to give examples of photons interacting without matter. there should be lots of them, wirebender says it is an overwhelming effect going on around us all the time.

thats where you came in. your proof consisted of a case of finely tuned lasers pointed at a specific substance that reemitted a different colour laser. not exactly a common happenstance and it occured interacting with matter.

your next example involved a poorly understood and poorly measured rare event seen at relativistic energies at Cern Super Collider. apparently extremely high energy gamma rays in very close proximity can have one photon convert into a particle-antiparticle pair (huge energy levels are needed, think reverse atomic bomb) and the other photon interacts with one of the particles. again, not exactly day-to-day conditions.

your third example was a conversation on a message board. sorry, it was a PHYSICS message board. I dont remember it, it was boring and didnt catch my attention.

you'll have to excuse me if I dont see how your two examples pertain to my discussion with wirebender about the basic physics of IR radiation in the atmosphere. perhaps you could find some more mundane examples that dont involve energies high enough to create matter.

or not. I really dont care. you are just trying to obscure the issues.

Ian you can pretend what my links were all you want, we both know what they were and what they said. The fact is you got yourself so worked up over the possibility of being shown wrong in a web forum you turned into a raving idiot and stopped listening, stopped reading, and stopped thinking about anything but saving face... I am ashamed for you man..

If you don't want to confront Ians math directly and show it to be incorrect, or even be honest about what he has contended, then why try and cover it in bullshit like this? You know by now someone will check it? All I can think of is it must be pride making you act this way.

If you cannot accept the definitions of a photon, EM fields, or that photons can effect one another or the EM fields they comprise, will not be honest about or accept any evidence of these terms, than there really is no reason you should try and maintain the pretense of your issues being mathematical. You have shown no interest in the mathematics, all you have shown an interest in is clouding the arguments with posturing and maintaining some air of knowledge that you are never wrong...

Now since you don't want to argue the mathematics with wirebender honestly and with integrity, I ask you a simple conceptual question...

IF the "greenhouse" theory is indeed correct as you would have us believe (that is more or less the same in concept and principles as that proposed by Arrenhius and by the IPCC and others today) and as you argue it is indeed the amounts or degrees of this effect that are in question. How is it that a trace gas making up just a few hundred parts per million of the atmosphere can bring about an overall increase in the net energy coming from its own source?

According to Arrhenius and popular theory on this, much of the suns rays come in and pass through the atmosphere and reflect off the earth or clouds and such, where they change and become short wave IR radiation or heat that is reflected off the planets surface and blocked, absorbed, held, conserved, re-radiated, whatever, by clouds and most particularly the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And whats more the contention is that the heat once trapped by the CO2 is acted upon by more incoming radiation forcing the release of the heat back to the earth. Thats a very simplistic explanation but pretty accurate in layman terms anyway.

Now wouldn't that last part be in violation of a few physical laws? For instance the biggest one I see is the concept that it magnifies the energy of its source by its mere existence. If that is possible why not build electrical generators with CO2 tanks they can send the power through so they can multiply the energy? That was a ridiculous thought but it makes the point clear. IF greenhouse theory could do all that we would have to rewrite a lot of science texts. Basically the overall concept in the theory is that the energy received from the sun (its source) is absorbed and converted to heat where it is then redirected to the atmosphere only to be absorbed and redirected back down again. Recycling energy like that would solve all of our energy problems in the world Ian...

If you can honestly say you find no flaw in this theory, I have some swamp land in FLorida, and a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in...

 

[IanC]

Ian do you realize you spent all this time arguing about photons interacting only with matter, only to now try and change that to photons only interact in the presence of matter? Thats called changing the terms, you aren't this ignorant Ian so stop.. Its more posturing bullshit from you to try and avoid appearing wrong here. LOLThats is oldsocks style bullshit Bud!

please specifically state how you think you have tripped me up.

I said wirebender was full of crap when he stated that EM fields could magically stop an IR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule from returning to earth. he then rambled about EM fields cancelling out each other. I then stated that the combined forces on a particle of matter would only the residual energy transfered but all the photons in all the fields were still there except the ones that had interacted on the particle. photons only interact with matter. they continue in a straight line at the speed of light at the same frequency except for very small adjustments for gravity and the expansion of the universe which are essentially nil for atmospheric times and distances. because wirebender continued to repeat the same nonsense about photons 'petering out' and such I asked him to give examples of photons interacting without matter. there should be lots of them, wirebender says it is an overwhelming effect going on around us all the time.

thats where you came in. your proof consisted of a case of finely tuned lasers pointed at a specific substance that reemitted a different colour laser. not exactly a common happenstance and it occured interacting with matter.

your next example involved a poorly understood and poorly measured rare event seen at relativistic energies at Cern Super Collider. apparently extremely high energy gamma rays in very close proximity can have one photon convert into a particle-antiparticle pair (huge energy levels are needed, think reverse atomic bomb) and the other photon interacts with one of the particles. again, not exactly day-to-day conditions.

your third example was a conversation on a message board. sorry, it was a PHYSICS message board. I dont remember it, it was boring and didnt catch my attention.

you'll have to excuse me if I dont see how your two examples pertain to my discussion with wirebender about the basic physics of IR radiation in the atmosphere. perhaps you could find some more mundane examples that dont involve energies high enough to create matter.
or not. I really dont care. you are just trying to obscure the issues.

Ian you can pretend what my links were all you want, we both know what they were and what they said. The fact is you got yourself so worked up over the possibility of being shown wrong in a web forum you turned into a raving idiot and stopped listening, stopped reading, and stopped thinking about anything but saving face... I am ashamed for you man..

If you don't want to confront Ians math directly and show it to be incorrect, or even be honest about what he has contended, then why try and cover it in bullshit like this? You know by now someone will check it? All I can think of is it must be pride making you act this way.

If you cannot accept the definitions of a photon, EM fields, or that photons can effect one another or the EM fields they comprise, will not be honest about or accept any evidence of these terms, than there really is no reason you should try and maintain the pretense of your issues being mathematical. You have shown no interest in the mathematics, all you have shown an interest in is clouding the arguments with posturing and maintaining some air of knowledge that you are never wrong...

Now since you don't want to argue the mathematics with wirebender honestly and with integrity, I ask you a simple conceptual question...

IF the "greenhouse" theory is indeed correct as you would have us believe (that is more or less the same in concept and principles as that proposed by Arrenhius and by the IPCC and others today) and as you argue it is indeed the amounts or degrees of this effect that are in question. How is it that a trace gas making up just a few hundred parts per million of the atmosphere can bring about an overall increase in the net energy coming from its own source?

According to Arrhenius and popular theory on this, much of the suns rays come in and pass through the atmosphere and reflect off the earth or clouds and such, where they change and become short wave IR radiation or heat that is reflected off the planets surface and blocked, absorbed, held, conserved, re-radiated, whatever, by clouds and most particularly the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And whats more the contention is that the heat once trapped by the CO2 is acted upon by more incoming radiation forcing the release of the heat back to the earth. Thats a very simplistic explanation but pretty accurate in layman terms anyway.

Now wouldn't that last part be in violation of a few physical laws? For instance the biggest one I see is the concept that it magnifies the energy of its source by its mere existence. If that is possible why not build electrical generators with CO2 tanks they can send the power through so they can multiply the energy? That was a ridiculous thought but it makes the point clear. IF greenhouse theory could do all that we would have to rewrite a lot of science texts. Basically the overall concept in the theory is that the energy received from the sun (its source) is absorbed and converted to heat where it is then redirected to the atmosphere only to be absorbed and redirected back down again. Recycling energy like that would solve all of our energy problems in the world Ian...

If you can honestly say you find no flaw in this theory, I have some swamp land in FLorida, and a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in...

why on earth are you asking ME to defend the warmer's position? hahaha

lets look at the basis again. the earth radiates IR as a black body. agreed? some of that IR is absorbed by CO2 and makes the molecule vibrate. agreed? the CO2 molecule then releases that IR in a random direction after some finite period of time. agreed? that slows the escape of energy even if the released photon then directly escapes into space. agreed? QED, CO2 warms the earth by slowing down the rate of heat loss.

but lets not stop there. H2O is a very good reflector of IR. it bounces IR right back at the earth at the speed of light (somewhat slower than in a vacuum because it is interacting with matter). therefore H2O also warms the earth by slowing the escape of earth's blackbod radiation although by a different mechanism.

of course this is a very simplistic explanation and other things are happening but that doesnt change the fact that these two things do happen and they do help to warm the earth.

personally I think the effect of manmade CO2 is trivial compared to the rest of the very complicated system but it is there and has to be taken into consideration.

please feel free to discuss any of the points brought up but refrain from accusing me of building perpetual motion machines or any other of your ad hom attacks.

 

[gslack]

please specifically state how you think you have tripped me up.

I said wirebender was full of crap when he stated that EM fields could magically stop an IR photon emitted by a CO2 molecule from returning to earth. he then rambled about EM fields cancelling out each other. I then stated that the combined forces on a particle of matter would only the residual energy transfered but all the photons in all the fields were still there except the ones that had interacted on the particle. photons only interact with matter. they continue in a straight line at the speed of light at the same frequency except for very small adjustments for gravity and the expansion of the universe which are essentially nil for atmospheric times and distances. because wirebender continued to repeat the same nonsense about photons 'petering out' and such I asked him to give examples of photons interacting without matter. there should be lots of them, wirebender says it is an overwhelming effect going on around us all the time.

thats where you came in. your proof consisted of a case of finely tuned lasers pointed at a specific substance that reemitted a different colour laser. not exactly a common happenstance and it occured interacting with matter.

your next example involved a poorly understood and poorly measured rare event seen at relativistic energies at Cern Super Collider. apparently extremely high energy gamma rays in very close proximity can have one photon convert into a particle-antiparticle pair (huge energy levels are needed, think reverse atomic bomb) and the other photon interacts with one of the particles. again, not exactly day-to-day conditions.

your third example was a conversation on a message board. sorry, it was a PHYSICS message board. I dont remember it, it was boring and didnt catch my attention.

you'll have to excuse me if I dont see how your two examples pertain to my discussion with wirebender about the basic physics of IR radiation in the atmosphere. perhaps you could find some more mundane examples that dont involve energies high enough to create matter.
or not. I really dont care. you are just trying to obscure the issues.

Ian you can pretend what my links were all you want, we both know what they were and what they said. The fact is you got yourself so worked up over the possibility of being shown wrong in a web forum you turned into a raving idiot and stopped listening, stopped reading, and stopped thinking about anything but saving face... I am ashamed for you man..

If you don't want to confront Ians math directly and show it to be incorrect, or even be honest about what he has contended, then why try and cover it in bullshit like this? You know by now someone will check it? All I can think of is it must be pride making you act this way.

If you cannot accept the definitions of a photon, EM fields, or that photons can effect one another or the EM fields they comprise, will not be honest about or accept any evidence of these terms, than there really is no reason you should try and maintain the pretense of your issues being mathematical. You have shown no interest in the mathematics, all you have shown an interest in is clouding the arguments with posturing and maintaining some air of knowledge that you are never wrong...

Now since you don't want to argue the mathematics with wirebender honestly and with integrity, I ask you a simple conceptual question...

IF the "greenhouse" theory is indeed correct as you would have us believe (that is more or less the same in concept and principles as that proposed by Arrenhius and by the IPCC and others today) and as you argue it is indeed the amounts or degrees of this effect that are in question. How is it that a trace gas making up just a few hundred parts per million of the atmosphere can bring about an overall increase in the net energy coming from its own source?

According to Arrhenius and popular theory on this, much of the suns rays come in and pass through the atmosphere and reflect off the earth or clouds and such, where they change and become short wave IR radiation or heat that is reflected off the planets surface and blocked, absorbed, held, conserved, re-radiated, whatever, by clouds and most particularly the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And whats more the contention is that the heat once trapped by the CO2 is acted upon by more incoming radiation forcing the release of the heat back to the earth. Thats a very simplistic explanation but pretty accurate in layman terms anyway.

Now wouldn't that last part be in violation of a few physical laws? For instance the biggest one I see is the concept that it magnifies the energy of its source by its mere existence. If that is possible why not build electrical generators with CO2 tanks they can send the power through so they can multiply the energy? That was a ridiculous thought but it makes the point clear. IF greenhouse theory could do all that we would have to rewrite a lot of science texts. Basically the overall concept in the theory is that the energy received from the sun (its source) is absorbed and converted to heat where it is then redirected to the atmosphere only to be absorbed and redirected back down again. Recycling energy like that would solve all of our energy problems in the world Ian...

If you can honestly say you find no flaw in this theory, I have some swamp land in FLorida, and a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in...

why on earth are you asking ME to defend the warmer's position? hahaha

lets look at the basis again. the earth radiates IR as a black body. agreed? some of that IR is absorbed by CO2 and makes the molecule vibrate. agreed? the CO2 molecule then releases that IR in a random direction after some finite period of time. agreed? that slows the escape of energy even if the released photon then directly escapes into space. agreed? QED, CO2 warms the earth by slowing down the rate of heat loss.

but lets not stop there. H2O is a very good reflector of IR. it bounces IR right back at the earth at the speed of light (somewhat slower than in a vacuum because it is interacting with matter). therefore H2O also warms the earth by slowing the escape of earth's blackbod radiation although by a different mechanism.

of course this is a very simplistic explanation and other things are happening but that doesnt change the fact that these two things do happen and they do help to warm the earth.

personally I think the effect of manmade CO2 is trivial compared to the rest of the very complicated system but it is there and has to be taken into consideration.

please feel free to discuss any of the points brought up but refrain from accusing me of building perpetual motion machines or any other of your ad hom attacks.

First Ian you are laughable, you spend days antagonizing me personally because you made an ass of yourself, and now after insulting me, after lying about my links on two occasions, after all of your weak attempts to obfuscate the discussion and twist or misrepresent what wirebender and I have said respectively, you now try and pretend you are the one under attack??? LOL...

So let me get this straight, instead addressing any of my points I raised, you just try and retell it in a way you feel comfortable debating? WOW....Ian can you stop dancing anytime...

you aren't going to address the net energy being greater than that from its source? Ah ok then it must be what exactly? If radiation coming is absorbed and sent back out to the atmosphere as IR Radiation, where it interacts with greenhouse gases (in this case CO2) causing the molecules to vibrate which releases heat and much of that goes back down to the surface, and out into space, how in the hell do you explain all of that energy? If that where at all possible we could harness the IR vibrative properties of CO2 and create machines that power the entire planet using just a glass tube of CO2 gas and some conductors.. By endorsing this greenhouse theory as a climate driver rather than a response, you are in effect supporting perpetual motion machines.

I didn't have to make an ad hominem attack to counter your claim, you did that when you lied about my links both times, and again when you kept your little snide remarks and talked about me in posts. I didn't start insulting you until you showed yourself to be a liar and a weasel on here..

See Ian as I stated here before I am no physicist and not really a mathematics expert. I am a data analyst by trade, I take information and compile it so that almost anyone can get the pertinent parts and disregard the BS. This job requires no set type of formal education, its main requirement is a natural ability to comprehend large amounts of information quickly and recognize the important bits that mat be buried in a sea of nonsense, and make that information easy for even the most ignorant of politicians to grasp without too much hand-holding. I been doing it for 20 some years now. I am damn good at it too. So good at it in fact I can usually spot BS the instant I take a look at its details.

And that is why I do not accept this BS theory as fact. Too many variables, too many corners cut, and now too many desperate to prove it no matter what. My original trainer at my job told me back when I started, "Only Bullshit requires your belief in it, the truth cares less what you think."