Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[SSDD]

I didn't read any of this thread until today.

I agree with SSDD that photons don't 'experience' time or distance. But there are two types of photons. Radiative photons that are created to shed energy (light) and reactive photons that transfer force in magnetic or electrical fields. Reactive photons are virtual, and do not have to conserve the usual properties, and they have the property of being additive or subtractive, but they have to have a partner to exist.

I think its funny that SSDD flips from disbelieving in photons to believing in their most esoteric qualities

As I have said, I don't think photons exist...I believe it is al EM waves with properties that we don't yet understand...but if you are going to believe in photons, then you have to grant them their own point of view and accept that the universe looks a lot different to a photon than it does to us...no matter which direction a photon may go, it is there in zero time and has travelled zero distance to get there and therefore, energy transfer via radiation is no different from energy transfer via direct contact...ie conduction.

The universe has an arrow of time. Just because there is no time in the photon's reference that doesn't mean there isn't time and distance in ours.

Conduction is different than plain radiation. The packets of energy are much larger. Conduction is more efficient although it needs matter to propigate.

So zero distance between objects is different from physical contact how?

 

[SSDD]

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

Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe. The answer will be zero distance to that point and zero time to get there. Sorry you are having such a hard time wrapping your mind around this...maybe that is why you find that you must invent smart photons, and smart radiation....you are trying to cram everything into your reference point with no realization that your reference point is meaningless to the entities in question. You are unmoving scenery...as animated as the print on wallpaper.

 

[Crick]

If you think you have the slightest hint of understanding of general or special relativity, think again.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you are a complete troll.

 

[SSDD]

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?

I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles. The second law does't even recognize particles...the second law is about energy movement and it doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen.

 

[SSDD]

If you think you have the slightest hint of understanding of general or special relativity, think again.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you are a complete troll.

Defense mechanism. Did you describe the difference between zero distance between objects and physical contact? Calling me a troll is hardly an adequate response to a question you can't answer. Unsurprising, but hardly adequate...but then that's your MO.

 

[Wuwei]

Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.

Did you ever try to apply the Lorentz transformation to a photon? Mathematically? Try it. The Lorentz equation blows up to infinity. You are way off base if you think you can do anything meaningful with a reference frame transformation to the speed of light. That shoots your whole (non)argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe. The answer will be zero distance to that point and zero time to get there. Sorry you are having such a hard time wrapping your mind around this...maybe that is why you find that you must invent smart photons, and smart radiation....you are trying to cram everything into your reference point with no realization that your reference point is meaningless to the entities in question. You are unmoving scenery...as animated as the print on wallpaper.

So the only source is your imagination?

 

[Wuwei]

I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles.

I agree with that.

...the second law is about energy movement and it doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen.

That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:

"...the second law is about heat movement and it (heat energy) doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen."

I hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[IanC]

Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.

Did you ever try to apply the Lorentz transformation to a photon? Mathematically? Try it. The Lorentz equation blows up to infinity. You are way off base if you think you can do anything meaningful with a reference frame transformation to the speed of light. That shoots your whole (non)argument.

I think undefined (division by zero) is more correct but the idea is right. You cannot compare our reference frame to that of a photon's in any meaningful way.

 

[IanC]

I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles.

I agree with that.

...the second law is about energy movement and it doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen.

That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:

"...the second law is about heat movement and it (heat energy) doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen."

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.

 

[Wuwei]

Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.

Well, his worldview is collapsed. Either he doesn't realize that or he does at some level and just likes to take a stance for the sake of cantankerous rhetoric.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Ian, do you really believe in virtual photons, or are they more likely simply another ad hoc explanation for something that we, at present, remain in the dark on?

 

[SSDD]

Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe.

Did you ever try to apply the Lorentz transformation to a photon? Mathematically? Try it. The Lorentz equation blows up to infinity. You are way off base if you think you can do anything meaningful with a reference frame transformation to the speed of light. That shoots your whole (non)argument.

I can't help but notice that you haven't described the difference between zero distance and zero time between bodies and physical contact.

 

[Politico]

Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

http://ds.data.jma.g...mp/mar_wld.html

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in March 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.31°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.76°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.83°C per century.

Japan would be more truthful? With all that honor and killing themselves over dishonor. Right???

I'm convinced, we need to spend trillions on unreliable "green" energy! Quick!

Don't forget the reducing of cow farts. All hail Kale!!!

 

[SSDD]

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

Apply the lorentz relativity equation to a photon from any point in the universe to any other point in the universe. The answer will be zero distance to that point and zero time to get there. Sorry you are having such a hard time wrapping your mind around this...maybe that is why you find that you must invent smart photons, and smart radiation....you are trying to cram everything into your reference point with no realization that your reference point is meaningless to the entities in question. You are unmoving scenery...as animated as the print on wallpaper.

So the only source is your imagination?

No argument...just more defensive sarcasm. Gotcha. Working on some more fantasy arguments like your smart photons in an effort to compensate the failure of your intellect to grasp this?

Interesting that Wuwei shows up just when you are feeling some pressure here and makes 11 of his 14 total posts in a three way discussion between you and me....can you spell sock. This must really be stressful to you to feel the need to bring in an alternate personality who can no more answer the questions being asked than you.

 

[SSDD]

That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:

"...the second law is about heat movement and it (heat energy) doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen."

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?

 

[SSDD]

I addressed the original question with the fact that the second law was written before particles were theorized....the second law has not been rewritten or altered for theoretical particles.

I agree with that.

...the second law is about energy movement and it doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen.

That is not true. You have one critical word wrong. This is a rewording, more consistent to what was written long ago.:

"...the second law is about heat movement and it (heat energy) doesn't flow uphill unless you do some work to make it happen."

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.

Perhaps you can answer my question Ian...is heat a form of energy, or is heat the result of energy moving from one place to another. I think we have been through this once before and you final answer is that it doesn't matter but as you can see, if the whole issue rests on a single word, then everything about that one word matters. So which is it...energy, or the evidence of energy moving from one place to another.

 

[SSDD]

Nothing will clear up his confusion on that issue. It would cause his worldview to collapse.

Well, his worldview is collapsed. Either he doesn't realize that or he does at some level and just likes to take a stance for the sake of cantankerous rhetoric.

Sounding more like toddster every post.

 

[Crick]

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?

The reason you get no answers is the abysmal form of your question.

The word "heat" is a symbol to which meaning is attached by the user. A very strong majority of such users intend it to convey a form of energy, which, like all energy, certainly has the ability to move. But in the second part of your question, you bring up "another form of energy" moving. So to answer your question we get to choose between one completely unidentified form of energy and the MOVEMENT of some OTHER form of completely unidentified energy.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat evidence of another form of energy moving from one place to another?

The reason you get no answers is the abysmal form of your question.

The word "heat" is a symbol to which meaning is attached by the user. A very strong majority of such users intend it to convey a form of energy, which, like all energy, certainly has the ability to move. But in the second part of your question, you bring up "another form of energy" moving. So to answer your question we get to choose between one completely unidentified form of energy and the MOVEMENT of some OTHER form of completely unidentified energy.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

No answer....As we have already been through this, I thought that perhaps you might have a clue. We found equally credible sources stating that heat was a form of energy in itself and that heat was, in essence, only the physical evidence that some form of energy was moving from one place to another....and the equally credible sources made their statements in absolute terms...not weasel words as you like to use.

It does matter if one is actually interested in the topic. You are interested only so far as it effects your dogma.