Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[SSDD]

You missed the whole point of special relativity. The universe does not have a single clock. Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.

And the some understanding of the other relativity would have made it clear to you that an object traveling a line bent by a gravitational field IS traveling in a straight line. You need a better grip on space time.

PS, I provided you (or one of your clones) a clear example of back conduction.

Just because no time passes for the photon doesn't mean no time passed for the rest of us.

^
This

Irrelevant from the photon's point of view. Again, you have to be able to wrap your mind around a few things. The first being that your point of view is meaningless to what is happening to a photon. The second is that if you believe in photons, then you must believe that in fact, from the photon's point of view, the distance from its point of origin to anywhere in the universe is zero...and the time it takes to get there is zero....

You didn't answer my question (like that is something new)...if you could see a photon at its point of origin and it was going to point B a few light years away, what do you think it would look like?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't care about the photon's reference point, I'm more interested in the "seeing into the future" silliness that your most recent contortion requires.

Of course you don't...which is why you are still trying to impose time in the form of future on an entity that does not experience time. And are you calling relativity and the Lorentz equations wrong? Again, apply the Lorentz relativity equations to a photon moving at the speed of light...from its point of view, travel time to anywhere is zero and distance is zero. Face it toddster, if you are going to believe in photons then you must believe in them as physics has described them....unless you know something that physics doesn't know.

As I already said, if you explain how conduction moves energy from hot to cold, I'll clear up your confusion.

I told you....I'm not explaining anything to you. It is pointless if it doesn't mesh with your dogma as evidenced by the fact that you are still tying to impose time and distance on a particle that experiences neither. This is apparently over your head. If you wan't to know how energy moves via conduction, I am sure that you can look it up on google. You might also try looking into relativity as well and try and get a grasp on what the universe would be like if you were sitting on a photon.

And are you calling relativity and the Lorentz equations wrong?

No, I'm calling you and your magic waves wrong.

I told you....I'm not explaining anything to you.

You haven't before, why start now? LOL!

If you wan't to know how energy moves via conduction, I am sure that you can look it up on google.

I know how it moves, I don't know what your incorrect understanding is, so how can I correct your error?

get a grasp on what the universe would be like if you were sitting on a photon.

I'd be able to see the future, so I could decide whether to radiate in any given direction?
Still hilarious!

 

[Wuwei]

The second law involves the flow of heat. You can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. You can't even show the second law is valid without assuming an ensemble of particles. So there is no need to change anything because it already excludes individual particles.

The second law was written before particles were even hypothetical and it hasn't changed with the advent of theoretical particles. Sorry.

That is a non-answer. Matter is now known to be composed of molecules. Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance that was not known before 1900. We now know that you can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. Do you deny that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The second law involves the flow of heat. You can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. You can't even show the second law is valid without assuming an ensemble of particles. So there is no need to change anything because it already excludes individual particles.

The second law was written before particles were even hypothetical and it hasn't changed with the advent of theoretical particles. Sorry.

That is a non-answer. Matter is now known to be composed of molecules. Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance that was not known before 1900. We now know that you can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. Do you deny that?

Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance

Based on his twisted "understanding", it can't be random.

 

[Wuwei]

Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance

Based on his twisted "understanding", it can't be random.

Well, I'm new to this board and I don't know his thinking(?) as well as you, but he seems to be stuck in the past of classical physics. Yet he keeps making nonsensical remarks involving modern physics. I don't think he understands either. If I were to guess, I would think he is a troll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance

Based on his twisted "understanding", it can't be random.

Well, I'm new to this board and I don't know his thinking(?) as well as you, but he seems to be stuck in the past of classical physics. Yet he keeps making nonsensical remarks involving modern physics. I don't think he understands either. If I were to guess, I would think he is a troll.

I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.

 

[Wuwei]

I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.

Does he really believe what he writes or is he simply an obstinate contrarian. If it's the latter, I would say he is a troll just having fun slinging around whatever physics he dreams up.

 

[SSDD]

No, I'm calling you and your magic waves wrong.

Strawman...we aren't talking about waves here...we are talking about photons.

You haven't before, why start now? LOL!

Thats a lie and you know it. I have tried very hard here to explain what the universe is like to a photon for you but clearly you just can't get it.

I know how it moves, I don't know what your incorrect understanding is, so how can I correct your error?

Do you think it moves from cool areas to warm?

I'd be able to see the future, so I could decide whether to radiate in any given direction?
Still hilarious!

Still trying to impose your point of view on a photon...if you were sitting on a photon, you wouldn't experience time so future would be a meaningless term to you. Does energy move in any given direction between bodies that are in contact but are different temperatures? Of course it doesn't...same for photons since the distance between them and all possible destinations is zero.

 

[SSDD]

That is a non-answer. Matter is now known to be composed of molecules.

You are equating photons to molecules?

Random molecular kinetic energy gives a meaning to heat and temperature of a substance that was not known before 1900. We now know that you can't define heat without an assemblage of particles. Do you deny that?

Are you calling molecules particles?

 

[SSDD]

I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.

Lying about someones position is also a defense tactic....you have become quite dishonest toddster. You were always one to bend the truth a bit, but now have stepped over into deliberate baldfaced lies. Congratulations.

 

[SSDD]

I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.

Does he really believe what he writes or is he simply an obstinate contrarian. If it's the latter, I would say he is a troll just having fun slinging around whatever physics he dreams up.

Do feel free to describe how zero distance between objects is different from physical contact. I would like to hear your take on the topic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.

Lying about someones position is also a defense tactic....you have become quite dishonest toddster. You were always one to bend the truth a bit, but now have stepped over into deliberate baldfaced lies. Congratulations.

You don't deny back-radiation?

 

[SSDD]

I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.

Lying about someones position is also a defense tactic....you have become quite dishonest toddster. You were always one to bend the truth a bit, but now have stepped over into deliberate baldfaced lies. Congratulations.

You don't deny back-radiation?

Of course I do, and like I said, you hide the big lie behind a small truth. Smart radiation selective directional emission of radiation are your own fabrications and your inability to grasp that terms like future are meaningless to entities traveling at the speed of light are just failures of your own intellect.

Are you saying that a photon isn't in contact with every possible destination it might travel to at its point of origin? Of course you are saying it...you are denying relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations....upon what basis are you denying them? Where is your proof?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it starts with his denial of back-radiation.
To defend that error, he has to build an ever more complex universe of smart radiation, selective, directional emission of radiation, waves that can see the future and measure its temperature, in all directions at once before deciding to be emitted etc.
He's like a guy drawing epicycles, decades after Copernicus showed why they weren't correct.

Lying about someones position is also a defense tactic....you have become quite dishonest toddster. You were always one to bend the truth a bit, but now have stepped over into deliberate baldfaced lies. Congratulations.

You don't deny back-radiation?

Of course I do, and like I said, you hide the big lie behind a small truth. Smart radiation selective directional emission of radiation are your own fabrications and your inability to grasp that terms like future are meaningless to entities traveling at the speed of light are just failures of your own intellect.

Are you saying that a photon isn't in contact with every possible destination it might travel to at its point of origin? Of course you are saying it...you are denying relativity and the Lorentz relativity equations....upon what basis are you denying them? Where is your proof?

Are you saying that a photon isn't in contact with every possible destination it might travel to at its point of origin?

Yes. If you have a reliable source that says it is, provide it.

 

[IanC]

The electric and magnetic fields make it obvious that photons know where they are going. Those that cannot find a particle to interact with simply cease to exist. Those that know they will interact become real photons and continue on to their destination.

Eg. Anti-theft sensors work with virtual photons. They do not exist long enough in our reference frame to contact even at the speed of light. Yet they do, and the device is triggered by the transfer of energy through the field.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Long chains of cellulose are similar in size to water vapour. You may have explain that in more depth

It was an analogy comparing molecule sizes and areas of collision causing friction heat. A water molecule is roughly 10 times larger than a CO2 molecule. Just a few CO2 molecules will reduce the friction during convection rise, or that is the hypothesis. This does two things. one it speeds up the rate of rise and reduces the amount of latent heat left in the atmosphere from the movement.

 

[IanC]

Ten times larger? I think I would need some confirmation on that. Water has polarity but I find it hard to believe it is ten times larger.

 

[Wuwei]

You are equating photons to molecules?

No.

Are you calling molecules particles?

Informally.

You have ignored the original question. The second law doesn't say anything about what individual particles (atoms or molecules) can or cannot do. Particles in hot and cold objects can exchange kinetic or radiation energy freely. The second law only tells us that thermal energy cannot spontaneously flow from cold to hot objects. Do you deny that?

 

[Crick]

CO2 molecules are roughly 3 times the size of water molecules (0.3 nm to 0.1 nm)

 

[Old Rocks]

Ten times larger? I think I would need some confirmation on that. Water has polarity but I find it hard to believe it is ten times larger.

molecules - What s the size of carbon dioxide - Physics Stack Exchange

CO2 molecule

The molecule is linear (all three atoms are in a co-linear line). The C=O bond is 116 pm, so the entire molecule (from centre of O to other O) is 232 pm. The extent in the other directions normal to the axis of symmetry is not well-defined as the electron cloud is diffuse and depends
significantly on environment.

What is the size of a water molecule Ask.com

FULL ANSWER
The bonds connecting the oxygen and hydrogen atoms is nearly 96 picometers in length. Water is classified as a polar molecule based on its electronic structure. The charge of the oxygen is partially negative and the charge of the hydrogen atoms is partially positive, causing water molecules to be strongly attracted to one another. These charges occur due to a bond dipole moment of 1.85 debye.

So the water molecule is 96 pm, and the carbon dioxide molecule is 232 pm. The carbon dioxide molecule is over twice as large as the water molecule. Once again, Billy Boob is pulling numbers out of his ass. A regular habit with him.