What the science says

[IanC]

Show me "net" in S=B's writings.

You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.

Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...

set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....

That would give the result of net power loss = zero.

and it is supported by every observation ever made

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.

Don't forget the timing issue. If a star a million light years were to wink out, all the Earth's warmer matter would have had to start radiating towards it a million years ago.

Personally, I don't think photons exist...but if they do, then I am afraid that you must abide by the rules...which state that a photon exists simultaneously at every point between its origination and its destination at the same time...sorry this is all so difficult for you, but then what would you expect from someone who can't make heads nor tails from the simplest graph.

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

 

[IanC]

Show me "net" in S=B's writings.

You bet.
Right after you show me anything that proves matter above 0K stops emitting in warmer surroundings.

Set T and Tc to the same number...what does P equal...and since you can't show me the use of "net" in the writings of S-B, I am afraid that you just can't win...your claim that you could is simply a lie....the fact that P =0 when T and Tc are set to the same number is demonstrable fact. Sorry guy...

set T and Tc to the same number...what then does P equal....

That would give the result of net power loss = zero.

and it is supported by every observation ever made

Really? Every observation ever made shows matter above 0K ceasing to emit when something the same temperature, or warmer, is nearby?

I'm curious about the mechanism that makes that "off switch" work.
Do both objects measure the temperature of the other? If so, how?

For 2 identical objects of slightly different temperatures,
it's understandable that the receiving object can "check the temperature" of the emitter,
based on the energy it receives, but how does the emitter know the temperature of the receiver?
You know, since the cooler receiver never emits.
And the warmer object would need to know the temperature of the cooler object, to know the precise moment
it needs to stop emitting, right?

How does it know? Spell it out.

Hahahahahaha. I guess he is saying both objects stop radiating if their temperature is the same?? What an idiot.

You know, I think he really believes his bullshit. I used to think he just painted himself into a corner and was just refusing to admit to an error but now I'm not so sure.

Lots of laughing like a monkey in a tree....not a single observed, measured instance of net energy exchange...

SSDD confuses the properties of light with the properties of matter. If you point two water hoses at each other they meet in the middle and cancel out because matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time with other matter. Light has no similar constraints. Any amount of light, traveling in any direction, can occupy the same space at the same time. Energy transfer by radiation is a net flow because radiation can only be absorbed, not cancelled out .

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

You seem to have a great difficulty in grasping concepts, even simple ones.

We use light to observe things. Either with our eyes or with instruments that can be much more sensitive. What are you proposing to observe light with? Hahahaha.

The speed of light has been measured quite accurately, in different mediums as well as in a vacuum. I can assure you that it takes a photon roughly six minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth.

Much of what we know can only be inferred from our observations. For instance, in the 1800's , Jupiter's orbit was well known and could be calculated quite precisely. But the predictions were just a little off, for an unknown reason. When light was hypothesized to have a speed rather than being instantaneous, it was quickly determined that it was the amount of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth that was causing the inconsistencies between observation and calculation. This discovery in turn helped to narrow down range of possible speeds for light.

This type of thing destroys your claim that there is no evidence, of anything, by anyone, and that physics is a hoax.

Do you have a similar type of anecdote that supports your theory that internal emission of radiation is controlled by the temperature of a distant object? Hmmmm...

 

[SSDD]

You seem to have a great difficulty in grasping concepts, even simple ones.

Far worse, you seem to have a great difficulty in separating concept from reality....you go on about theoretical constructs such as photons, etc, as if they are real and you have some actual idea of what they are up to. I have known computer geeks who spoke of the workings of computers as if they were small communities composed of their friends and each of these friends had a thing that he did...rather than view the reality of the computer as a cold machine that spoke nothing more than a machine language consisting of zeroes and ones, they apparently found that they could only relate to it if they made it personal and had relationships with the internal workings...you seem to have that same problem with theoretical concepts...rather than accept them as little more than stories that hold a place till we get more understanding (or more correctly, ANY real understanding) of what is happening at the microscopic level, you seem to view the theoretical concepts as real, and speak of them in terms as if you had some sort of actual evidence that they are real and doing what you claim. Nothing could be further from the truth and yet, that is apparently how you go about your life.

The speed of light has been measured quite accurately, in different mediums as well as in a vacuum. I can assure you that it takes a photon roughly six minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth.

From your point of view...which is irrelevant to the theoretical photon to whom the distance from the sun to here as zero and the time to reach the earth as also zero. Your point of view is of little importance.

Much of what we know can only be inferred from our observations.

Translation.....much of what we claim to know is little more than stories that we invented in an attempt to explain things that we are still a very long way from actually understanding. It isn't anything new...look at the stories that people five thousand years ago told themselves in an attempt to explain the world around them...look at the difference in the stories of 300 years ago....they reflect some increase in knowledge, and understanding, but are still a long way from reality...now look at the stories from a hundred years ago...more knowledge, some more understanding, but still just stories and at that point they were beginning to grasp how far those stories are from reality...look at the stories from 50 years ago...from 25 years ago...from 10 years ago...from 3 years ago....as we gain knowledge, the stories change....but they are still stories....and they are not to be mistaken for reality. You really need to come to terms with the FACT that photons are theoretical constructs that hold a place in the narrative till such time as we gain some more knowledge of the microscopic.

This type of thing destroys your claim that there is no evidence, of anything, by anyone, and that physics is a hoax.

I never said that there is no evidence of anything...and I never said that physics is a hoax...there is plenty of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of most of classical physics...and I accept observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence as truth till such time as even more evidence overturns what we thought we understood...but I don't accept mathematical constructs and models in place of reality...which you clearly do...and not only accept them, but apparently have built yourself a little community in which you have actual relationships with all of these fictional characters.

Do you have a similar type of anecdote that supports your theory that internal emission of radiation is controlled by the temperature of a distant object? Hmmmm...

Just the SB law...and the second law of thermodynamics...and every observation ever made.

 

[Crick]

What is the speed of light SID, in any reference frame?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What is the speed of light SID, in any reference frame?

Is this supposed to be an a ha! question

 

[SSDD]

What is the speed of light SID, in any reference frame?

Is this supposed to be an a ha! question

It was the best he could come up with...he has been wondering for a very long time...think I should give it to him in the form of a graph?

 

[Crick]

We all know the answer and it is not, as SSDD has been attempting to push, infinity. That photons experience complete time dilation is irrelevant. Their velocity in any and all other timeframes is c, 2.998e ms^-1, a distinctly finite value. I pointed out that SSDD's nonsense (which you adopted jc) that matter throttles its own emissions depending on the temperature of distant matter clearly violates relativity AND (as we have seen from Ian and Todd) causality. So SSDD's rants about time dilation are intended to give the impression to folks like you, jc, that he has some method by which this can take place without violating relativity. Well, he cannot. Photons DO take time to get from A to B. If the temperature of distant matter controls whether or not something emits photons, that awareness would have to travel instantaneously AND allow the calculation of future states. Nothing travels instantaneously and neither inanimate matter nor electromagnetic energy can perform calculations.

Try this on for size jc.

We have two objects coasting along relatively near to each other in deep space. One is 5.K (extremely cold), the other is 5,000K (very hot). Real science (as opposed to SSDD's 'science') tells us they are both radiating, but that the hot one is radiating a great deal more then the cold one. The net result is some transfer of heat from the hot to the cold. Simplistically, it would be the same transfer as we would see from a 4,995K object to a region of absolute zero. But I digress. SSDD's view is that the colder object radiates absolutely nothing towards the hotter one and that the hotter one throttles its own emissions towards the cold object by an amount proportional to the colder ones's temperature.

But both these objects are moving. Their trajectories are controlled by the spacetime geometry through which they travel which, in turn, is controlled by the gravity fields of the matter in that space. In other words, they travel on geodesic paths according to the gravity fields in which they are immersed.

Now, completely indiscernible from the exterior, the hotter object contains a large fusion device at its center. At time t=0, that device detonates and the entire object is turned into a fine gas spreading through space. Obviously, this changes the relationship between the two objects. The colder one, which had to have somehow known that the object was about to be destroyed. had to alter its own emissions and do so before the explosion had taken place since it will require some amount of time for its emissions to travel to the former location of the hotter object. The matter of the hotter object, had to throttle its emissions, in advance of the detonation, to reflect the conditions that would exist after it had been forcefully scattered to the four winds.

The obvious answer, jc, is that SSDD's interpretation of physics is deeply, fundamentally wrong. The above scenario is perfectly characterized by accepting that all matter radiates all the time in a manner proportional to its temperature. Think of Occam's Razor. The simpler explanation; the explanation that requires manufacturing the least number of new things (like intelligent photons that can violate relativity), is far more likely to be true. The normal, mainstream understanding of radiative heat transfer is far, far, far more likely to be correct than is SSDD's.

 

[IanC]

We all know the answer and it is not, as SSDD has been attempting to push, infinity. That photons experience complete time dilation is irrelevant. Their velocity in any and all other timeframes is c, 2.998e ms^-1, a distinctly finite value. I pointed out that SSDD's nonsense (which you adopted jc) that matter throttles its own emissions depending on the temperature of distant matter clearly violates relativity AND (as we have seen from Ian and Todd) causality. So SSDD's rants about time dilation are intended to give the impression to folks like you, jc, that he has some method by which this can take place without violating relativity. Well, he cannot. Photons DO take time to get from A to B. If the temperature of distant matter controls whether or not something emits photons, that awareness would have to travel instantaneously AND allow the calculation of future states. Nothing travels instantaneously and neither inanimate matter nor electromagnetic energy can perform calculations.

Try this on for size jc.

We have two objects coasting along relatively near to each other in deep space. One is 5.K (extremely cold), the other is 5,000K (very hot). Real science (as opposed to SSDD's 'science') tells us they are both radiating, but that the hot one is radiating a great deal more then the cold one. The net result is some transfer of heat from the hot to the cold. Simplistically, it would be the same transfer as we would see from a 4,995K object to a region of absolute zero. But I digress. SSDD's view is that the colder object radiates absolutely nothing towards the hotter one and that the hotter one throttles its own emissions towards the cold object by an amount proportional to the colder ones's temperature.

But both these objects are moving. Their trajectories are controlled by the spacetime geometry through which they travel which, in turn, is controlled by the gravity fields of the matter in that space. In other words, they travel on geodesic paths according to the gravity fields in which they are immersed.

Now, completely indiscernible from the exterior, the hotter object contains a large fusion device at its center. At time t=0, that device detonates and the entire object is turned into a fine gas spreading through space. Obviously, this changes the relationship between the two objects. The colder one, which had to have somehow known that the object was about to be destroyed. had to alter its own emissions and do so before the explosion had taken place since it will require some amount of time for its emissions to travel to the former location of the hotter object. The matter of the hotter object, had to throttle its emissions, in advance of the detonation, to reflect the conditions that would exist after it had been forcefully scattered to the four winds.

The obvious answer, jc, is that SSDD's interpretation of physics is deeply, fundamentally wrong. The above scenario is perfectly characterized by accepting that all matter radiates all the time in a manner proportional to its temperature. Think of Occam's Razor. The simpler explanation; the explanation that requires manufacturing the least number of new things (like intelligent photons that can violate relativity), is far more likely to be true. The normal, mainstream understanding of radiative heat transfer is far, far, far more likely to be correct than is SSDD's.

Thanks. I hadn't thought of the time element to transfer information. There were too many other glaringly obvious reasons as to why SSDD was wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

 

[Crick]

Goodness gracious. The photon is following its rules and Todd is simply aware of them.

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

I never did.
I do insist that they follow the rules we've already discovered, not SSDD's confused misinterpretation of the rules we've discovered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

 

[IanC]

Hahahaha, more insane bullshit from SSDD.

Photons don't exist? Hahahahahaha. I don't think there has been a topic more studied in science than light and photons.

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

SSDD again shows his ignorance misunderstanding the Lorenz Transformations. It is not that photons exist everywhere along their path at the same time, observations prove otherwise, but that time and distance do not exist in the reference frame of speed-of-light entities such as photons, neutrinos, etc. There is a big difference.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

 

[Crick]

Time, dimensional and mass dilation all originated with the Lorentz Transforms which were based solely on Maxwell's equations. No Einstein involved yet.. The Lorentz Transform figures centrally in the derivation of E=mc^2 from first principles.

 

[IanC]

Good ol' mathematics, ya gotta love it.

Sometimes it is expanded to fill a need, other times it is expanded just for math's sake and others find a use for it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet...not the first actual evidence of their existence....sad statement about science.

Since there are no observations of photons you are merely expressing opinion...unsupportable...untestable...unmeasurable...unobservable opinion.

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view, the time to move from its point of origin to anywhere is zero because the distance from its point of origin to anywhere is zero...

From a theoretical "photon's" point of view,

Omniscient photons....cool!

Why are you insisting that a photon has to follow YOUR rules of the Universe?

Which rules do you think are up for debate? Most of them have been thoroughly investigated. Some are pretty strange but they have stood the test of repeated experiments by different investigators and methods.

SSDD'S claim that photons experience no time or distance in their relativistic frame is actually only a postulate based on mathematics that has precarious infinity and division by zero dangers. That one could certainly be up for debate. The great Maxwell chose not to give a mechanism as to how reactive (virtual) photons carry the EM force and was content just to show that they did.

I thought Einstein was the one who showed that times stops at the speed of light

Time and distance dilation are proven properties of his Theory of Relativity.

No particle of matter can attain the speed of light because the mass increases proportionally to the speed.

It is proposed that no speed of light entity can travel either faster or slower than c.

That leaves a discontinuity at the speed of light that separates matter from light.

So time does or does not stop at c?