Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Billy_Bob]

Is not a photon a charged particle?

Is not a photon a charged particle?

No.

Why don't you elaborate? This I got to hear!

Zero charge. No charge. Is that too complex?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter. Is that to basic for you?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter.

Yes, your false claim is too basic. Give me some proof.

"The classical model of electricity and magnetism makes use of the ideas of electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s equations describe how these fields behave, and the Lorentz force equation, which describes how the fields push and pull charged particles and magnets. A prediction of Maxwell’s equations is that there are waves in the electromagnetic field which travel at the speed of light. These waves were identified with light by the experiments of Hertz and others. We therefore have two very different ideas for how light works -- as waves in the electric and magnetic fields, and as motion of particles -- photons. This pair of explanations is called "wave-particle duality" and is a recurring theme of quantum mechanics. Depending on the experimental situation, light acts as a wave or as a particle (but never both simultaneously)."

Depending on the state of the energy it can be either a wave or a particle. My explanation is using the particle as my point of view.

"Professor Michael Stone said 'It's tricky'. His explanation is that an ordinary, free, photon has two different transverse polarization states as can be easily demonstrated by the usual crossed polarizers experiment. An electron that interacts with this kind of photon couldn't care less where it came from. It just scatters ala Compton. Now in the case of when the photons are virtual, such as when two electrons are close to each other and are experiencing Coulomb-like forces, the photon has an extra, longitudinal, polarization state. This extra state carries information as to the charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..

Its rather amusing to see everyone squirm..

Source

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is not a photon a charged particle?

No.

Why don't you elaborate? This I got to hear!

Zero charge. No charge. Is that too complex?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter. Is that to basic for you?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter.

Yes, your false claim is too basic. Give me some proof.

"The classical model of electricity and magnetism makes use of the ideas of electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s equations describe how these fields behave, and the Lorentz force equation, which describes how the fields push and pull charged particles and magnets. A prediction of Maxwell’s equations is that there are waves in the electromagnetic field which travel at the speed of light. These waves were identified with light by the experiments of Hertz and others. We therefore have two very different ideas for how light works -- as waves in the electric and magnetic fields, and as motion of particles -- photons. This pair of explanations is called "wave-particle duality" and is a recurring theme of quantum mechanics. Depending on the experimental situation, light acts as a wave or as a particle (but never both simultaneously)."

Depending on the state of the energy it can be either a wave or a particle. My explanation is using the particle as my point of view.

"Professor Michael Stone said 'It's tricky'. His explanation is that an ordinary, free, photon has two different transverse polarization states as can be easily demonstrated by the usual crossed polarizers experiment. An electron that interacts with this kind of photon couldn't care less where it came from. It just scatters ala Compton. Now in the case of when the photons are virtual, such as when two electrons are close to each other and are experiencing Coulomb-like forces, the photon has an extra, longitudinal, polarization state. This extra state carries information as to the charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..

Its rather amusing to see everyone squirm..

Source

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..

Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

Your source says the electron is attracted or repelled, not the photon.

Also from your source.

Grahame- You’re right that electromagnetic waves, whether viewed classically or in terms of quantized photons, are not affected by static electrical or magnetic fields. They have no charge.

Let me know when you find proof of your claim.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why don't you elaborate? This I got to hear!

Zero charge. No charge. Is that too complex?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter. Is that to basic for you?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter.

Yes, your false claim is too basic. Give me some proof.

"The classical model of electricity and magnetism makes use of the ideas of electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s equations describe how these fields behave, and the Lorentz force equation, which describes how the fields push and pull charged particles and magnets. A prediction of Maxwell’s equations is that there are waves in the electromagnetic field which travel at the speed of light. These waves were identified with light by the experiments of Hertz and others. We therefore have two very different ideas for how light works -- as waves in the electric and magnetic fields, and as motion of particles -- photons. This pair of explanations is called "wave-particle duality" and is a recurring theme of quantum mechanics. Depending on the experimental situation, light acts as a wave or as a particle (but never both simultaneously)."

Depending on the state of the energy it can be either a wave or a particle. My explanation is using the particle as my point of view.

"Professor Michael Stone said 'It's tricky'. His explanation is that an ordinary, free, photon has two different transverse polarization states as can be easily demonstrated by the usual crossed polarizers experiment. An electron that interacts with this kind of photon couldn't care less where it came from. It just scatters ala Compton. Now in the case of when the photons are virtual, such as when two electrons are close to each other and are experiencing Coulomb-like forces, the photon has an extra, longitudinal, polarization state. This extra state carries information as to the charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..

Its rather amusing to see everyone squirm..

Source

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..

Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

Your source says the electron is attracted or repelled, not the photon.

Also from your source.

Grahame- You’re right that electromagnetic waves, whether viewed classically or in terms of quantized photons, are not affected by static electrical or magnetic fields. They have no charge.

Let me know when you find proof of your claim.

A photon as a particle has a positive charge (simplified state, as a photon is affected by two electrons columb state within a field). Photons as a wave are neutrally charged (quanitized). The 'state' is the issue and the field surrounding an electron changes the state of the electron and its ability to accept or reject a photon. We can go round and round on this as I have done with professors.

In my case we agreed to disagree as there is scientific evidence supporting both positions. This is an area far from settled, as science goes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Zero charge. No charge. Is that too complex?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter. Is that to basic for you?

A photon has a positive charge as does all energy matter.

Yes, your false claim is too basic. Give me some proof.

"The classical model of electricity and magnetism makes use of the ideas of electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s equations describe how these fields behave, and the Lorentz force equation, which describes how the fields push and pull charged particles and magnets. A prediction of Maxwell’s equations is that there are waves in the electromagnetic field which travel at the speed of light. These waves were identified with light by the experiments of Hertz and others. We therefore have two very different ideas for how light works -- as waves in the electric and magnetic fields, and as motion of particles -- photons. This pair of explanations is called "wave-particle duality" and is a recurring theme of quantum mechanics. Depending on the experimental situation, light acts as a wave or as a particle (but never both simultaneously)."

Depending on the state of the energy it can be either a wave or a particle. My explanation is using the particle as my point of view.

"Professor Michael Stone said 'It's tricky'. His explanation is that an ordinary, free, photon has two different transverse polarization states as can be easily demonstrated by the usual crossed polarizers experiment. An electron that interacts with this kind of photon couldn't care less where it came from. It just scatters ala Compton. Now in the case of when the photons are virtual, such as when two electrons are close to each other and are experiencing Coulomb-like forces, the photon has an extra, longitudinal, polarization state. This extra state carries information as to the charge sign of its source. Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..

Its rather amusing to see everyone squirm..

Source

The state of the electrical field surrounding the electron can cause the photon to be repelled as I stated before..

Hence the electron receiving the photon can decide whether to be attracted or repelled."

Your source says the electron is attracted or repelled, not the photon.

Also from your source.

Grahame- You’re right that electromagnetic waves, whether viewed classically or in terms of quantized photons, are not affected by static electrical or magnetic fields. They have no charge.

Let me know when you find proof of your claim.

A photon as a particle has a positive charge (simplified state, as a photon is affected by two electrons columb state within a field). Photons as a wave are neutrally charged (quanitized). The 'state' is the issue and the field surrounding an electron changes the state of the electron and its ability to accept or reject a photon. We can go round and round on this as I have done with professors.

In my case we agreed to disagree as there is scientific evidence supporting both positions. This is an area far from settled, as science goes.

A photon as a particle has a positive charge

A claim which you have failed to prove.

 

[Wuwei]

A photon as a particle has a positive charge

A claim which you have failed to prove.

That is so weird. I have never seen anyone go that far against well known physics. I wonder if his friends will give him a winner rating.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A photon as a particle has a positive charge

A claim which you have failed to prove.

That is so weird. I have never seen anyone go that far against well known physics. I wonder if his friends will give him a winner rating.

Between smart photons and charged photons, it's the biggest concentration of scientific idiocy I've seen in a while.

 

[SSDD]

what errors were his?

The part where the Sun is radiating at -18C.

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18....

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C? you've never actually commented. does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. perhaps you could explain it to him and me.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C?

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

didn't the image from the universities show that?

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures? hmmmmmmmm

At this point JC...he knows he is wrong...he just isn't grown up enough to admit it...again, look to the behavior of a 5 year old if you want to understand toddster....

 

[SSDD]

A photon as a particle has a positive charge

A claim which you have failed to prove.

That is so weird. I have never seen anyone go that far against well known physics. I wonder if his friends will give him a winner rating.

Sorry guy...that isn't "well known" physics...the fact is that we are just scratching the surface with regard to what light actually is...we still don't know whether it is wave or particle...or both...what we claim we know is nothing more than a story used as a place holder till such time as we actually know...you guys who accept unproven theory as fact crack me up...

 

[Crick]

You, who make up insane nonsense regarding basic physics make me think you are one pathetic human being. A photon has no charge. That is a KNOWN. There is no question as to whether light is a particle or a wave. It is both; something that has been KNOWN since Einstein was young.

The problem here isn't the failings of basic physics. The failing is your belief that the universe has to correspond to your limited senses and your personal prejudices.

Just pathetic.

 

[Wuwei]

A photon as a particle has a positive charge

A claim which you have failed to prove.

That is so weird. I have never seen anyone go that far against well known physics. I wonder if his friends will give him a winner rating.

Sorry guy...that isn't "well known" physics...the fact is that we are just scratching the surface with regard to what light actually is...we still don't know whether it is wave or particle...or both...what we claim we know is nothing more than a story used as a place holder till such time as we actually know...you guys who accept unproven theory as fact crack me up...

Do you think the photons might have charge? If you, do would they would be positive or negative or both? The like charged photons would repel each other and the unlike charged photons would attract. How do you think that might affect the visual appearance of objects? Why don't you try a repeatable testable measurable experiment along those lines and tell us what you get.

 

[jc456]

A photon as a particle has a positive charge

A claim which you have failed to prove.

That is so weird. I have never seen anyone go that far against well known physics. I wonder if his friends will give him a winner rating.

Sorry guy...that isn't "well known" physics...the fact is that we are just scratching the surface with regard to what light actually is...we still don't know whether it is wave or particle...or both...what we claim we know is nothing more than a story used as a place holder till such time as we actually know...you guys who accept unproven theory as fact crack me up...

Do you think the photons might have charge? If you, do would they would be positive or negative or both? The like charged photons would repel each other and the unlike charged photons would attract. How do you think that might affect the visual appearance of objects? Why don't you try a repeatable testable measurable experiment along those lines and tell us what you get.

funny how you all want someone else to do the testing that should have already been done. I'm saying this since this is science right? isn't that a rule of science to perform tests to validate a hypothesis? Where is yours that show cool moving to warm?

 

[Crick]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

 

[jc456]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

then why is it you don't have one to show cold matter warming up warm matter?

 

[IanC]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

then why is it you don't have one to show cold matter warming up warm matter?

Fuck, you're stupid.

You are simply incapable of understanding a moderately complex condition because it is impossible to simplify it down to the point where you can grasp it.

 

[jc456]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

then why is it you don't have one to show cold matter warming up warm matter?

Fuck, you're stupid.

You are simply incapable of understanding a moderately complex condition because it is impossible to simplify it down to the point where you can grasp it.

there is none, I know.

 

[IanC]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

then why is it you don't have one to show cold matter warming up warm matter?

Fuck, you're stupid.

You are simply incapable of understanding a moderately complex condition because it is impossible to simplify it down to the point where you can grasp it.

there is none, I know.

And the extra insulating wrap you can buy for your hot water tank doesn't cut your fuel bill either. Right?

Hahahaha. What a moron you are.

 

[jc456]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

then why is it you don't have one to show cold matter warming up warm matter?

Fuck, you're stupid.

You are simply incapable of understanding a moderately complex condition because it is impossible to simplify it down to the point where you can grasp it.

there is none, I know.

And the extra insulating wrap you can buy for your hot water tank doesn't cut your fuel bill either. Right?

Hahahaha. What a moron you are.

there you have it!

 

[SSDD]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

And yet..you can't seem to manage a single measurement of back radiation at ambient temperature....you telling me that they have been experimenting for 200 years and have forgotten to take measurements?

 

[SSDD]

Experiments for the last 200 years have shown that ALL matter radiates in ALL directions, regardless of the temperature of any matter that might exist around it. It is an absolute fundamental of basic thermodynamics. BASIC FUNDAMENTAL. Do you fucking understand?

then why is it you don't have one to show cold matter warming up warm matter?

Fuck, you're stupid.

You are simply incapable of understanding a moderately complex condition because it is impossible to simplify it down to the point where you can grasp it.

And when the greenhouse effect is simplified to the point that the bullshit is completely exposed...you still believe in the magic..

 

[Crick]

You're the one who believes in magic. You've admitted it yourself (thing's we'll just never know...). There is nothing wrong with the simplified explanations of radiative transfer provided in those diagrams. The problem is YOU and your idiotic interpretations.