Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #509836 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-27 07:28 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-19 09:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 122 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 07:28 -0700
'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 18:16 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 07:17 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 15:18 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-29 02:22 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-10 21:18 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:51 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 15:58 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-11 01:04 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:49 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:26 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:31 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:41 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:51 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:44 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 11:00 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-11 18:44 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:51 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:17 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 10:45 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 09:50 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 10:01 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 08:10 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 13:44 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 07:51 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 21:28 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 14:35 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 23:31 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 15:22 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 14:43 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 19:39 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 18:06 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 20:23 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 19:37 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 00:39 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 15:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:25 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:15 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:31 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2015-08-16 16:09 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' [OT] Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 18:47 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 11:09 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 12:40 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:17 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:46 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:42 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 11:21 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 12:58 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:19 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:49 +0200
light is magneto-electrical noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 19:10 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 13:49 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 20:50 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 14:03 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 00:43 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 17:53 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 09:34 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 08:05 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:36 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:00 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:22 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:30 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:56 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:17 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 11:26 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 13:01 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 10:14 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 10:43 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 13:07 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:21 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:07 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-11 01:03 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-10 23:40 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 13:41 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 14:54 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 08:13 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:46 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 09:48 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:00 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 13:45 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 16:01 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 07:07 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 10:39 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 20:29 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-13 19:14 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> - 2015-08-13 19:28 +0000
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-15 15:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 12:23 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:04 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 16:32 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 16:33 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:02 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 19:24 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:31 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 22:16 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 22:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 20:45 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 22:32 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 22:57 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 23:22 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 23:34 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 23:38 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:43 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 08:07 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 21:40 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 22:35 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 23:36 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 23:50 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 07:56 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:48 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-13 13:41 +0200
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:27 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 14:42 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 14:01 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 20:21 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 01:26 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 06:07 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 08:05 -0500
Re: 'Dark Matter' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 07:04 -0700
Re: 'Dark Matter' HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 19:14 -0400
Re: 'Dark Matter' "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 09:12 -0700
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1988231.S9zuroQh9I@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514182 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/08/2015 v 00:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> It is still true that at atom with non-zero rest mass will recoil from
>>> an emitted photon.
>> Atoms do not emit photons. You are arguing based on a fantasy.
>
> You mean atoms in their base state.
No atoms.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
Irrelevant evidence.
> Sure, it is rather the electron, changing its quantum state,
So you realized.
> but so does its atom taken as complex quantum object.
Nonsense.
> Atoms and molecules emit photons, if excited.
No.
> Molecules absorb and emit IR photons all the time,
> changing their vibration and rotation quantum modes.
> Even atomic matter like solid argon.
Nonsense.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqq67j$o7m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514277 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:00 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/08/2015 v 00:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> It is still true that at atom with non-zero rest mass will recoil from >>>> an emitted photon. >>> Atoms do not emit photons. You are arguing based on a fantasy. >> >> You mean atoms in their base state. > > No atoms. Missing knowledge. > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series > > Irrelevant evidence. There is much more. Several long established checical analytical techniques are based on atomic absorption and emission. > >> Sure, it is rather the electron, changing its quantum state, > > So you realized. I know it since beginning. They are not free, but bounded, being atom feature. > >> but so does its atom taken as complex quantum object. > > Nonsense. But you cannot explain why. > >> Atoms and molecules emit photons, if excited. > > No. But you cannot explain why. > >> Molecules absorb and emit IR photons all the time, >> changing their vibration and rotation quantum modes. >> Even atomic matter like solid argon. > > Nonsense. > But you cannot explain why. Denialist. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3667766.MOmPe3kfFZ@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514286 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:00 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 16/08/2015 v 00:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> It is still true that at atom with non-zero rest mass will recoil from
>>>>> an emitted photon.
>>>> Atoms do not emit photons. You are arguing based on a fantasy.
>>> You mean atoms in their base state.
>> No atoms.
>
> Missing knowledge.
Yes, on your part.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
>> Irrelevant evidence.
>
> There is much more. Several long established checical analytical
> techniques are based on atomic absorption and emission.
Parse error.
>>> Sure, it is rather the electron, changing its quantum state,
>>
>> So you realized.
>
> I know it since beginning.
> They are not free, but bounded, being atom feature.
Your English is awful, which I can only hope accounts for your
misrepresentations of my statements.
Yes, electrons are originally bound to the nucleus, therefore we have atoms.
But if their energy is increased, they can leave the atom; therefore we have
electric currents.
>>> but so does its atom taken as complex quantum object.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> But you cannot explain why.
I can. Atoms are not quantum objects to begin with. Elementary particles
are.
>>> Atoms and molecules emit photons, if excited.
>> No.
>
> But you cannot explain why.
I can. Atoms, which are mostly empty space, consists of other things.
Things that can absorb some of the energy of photons and can emit some of
their energy in the form of photons.
>>> Molecules absorb and emit IR photons all the time,
>>> changing their vibration and rotation quantum modes.
>>> Even atomic matter like solid argon.
>> Nonsense.
>>
> But you cannot explain why.
See above.
> Denialist.
Gibberishing liar.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqq876$qk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514292 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:30 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series >>> Irrelevant evidence. >> >> There is much more. Several long established checical analytical >> techniques are based on atomic absorption and emission. > > Parse error. Evading. > >>>> Sure, it is rather the electron, changing its quantum state, >>> >>> So you realized. >> >> I know it since beginning. >> They are not free, but bounded, being atom feature. > > Your English is awful, which I can only hope accounts for your > misrepresentations of my statements. Your English is much worse, as I may misuse it, but you abuse it. > > Yes, electrons are originally bound to the nucleus, therefore we have atoms. > But if their energy is increased, they can leave the atom; therefore we have > electric currents. Or, they are just excited, like hydrogen atom, or atoms of most elements in carbide or tungstene furnace of Atomic absorption spectroscop. > >>>> but so does its atom taken as complex quantum object. >>> >>> Nonsense. >> >> But you cannot explain why. > > I can. Atoms are not quantum objects to begin with. Elementary particles > are. You say one should start at complext quantum objects ? > >>>> Atoms and molecules emit photons, if excited. >>> No. >> >> But you cannot explain why. > > I can. Atoms, which are mostly empty space, consists of other things. > Things that can absorb some of the energy of photons and can emit some of > their energy in the form of photons. The whole is sum of its parts plus some new feature the arts do not have. IR photons are absorbed by multiatom osillator. > >>>> Molecules absorb and emit IR photons all the time, >>>> changing their vibration and rotation quantum modes. >>>> Even atomic matter like solid argon. >>> Nonsense. >>> >> But you cannot explain why. > > See above. > >> Denialist. > > Gibberishing liar. > Show, where did I lie. As I know I did not. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 11:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpkcg$evv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513320 |
Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:50 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/13/2015 12:39 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> But the Sun does not consist only of photons. In fact, it consists of >>> more stuff that does not manifest itself as a photon than vice-versa. >>> Stuff whose mass is not zero. Stuff that does not emit those photons in >>> the first place. >> >> I'm sorry, > > No, you are not. ........ >> Are you seriously claiming that the only situation where conservation of >> momentum applies where a photon is radiated away (carrying momentum) is >> when the recoiling object is ALSO a photon? > > No, that is just another straw man argument of yours. > No, it was a question, provoked by your statements. Insulting of others is low way of thinking and is common case among scientists of 3rd or 4th order. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 11:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2023382.vUvlHlxpL1@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514178 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:50 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Are you seriously claiming that the only situation where conservation of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> momentum applies where a photon is radiated away (carrying momentum) is
>>> when the recoiling object is ALSO a photon?
>> No, that is just another straw man argument of yours.
>
> No, it was a question, provoked by your statements.
Look up “straw man argument”. It was _not_ only a question. It was an
insinuation.
> Insulting of others is low way of thinking
> and is common case
> among scientists of 3rd or 4th order.
This could be taken as an insult.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 13:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpqf2$69j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514181 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 11:26 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 13/08/2015 v 20:50 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Are you seriously claiming that the only situation where conservation of > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> momentum applies where a photon is radiated away (carrying momentum) is >>>> when the recoiling object is ALSO a photon? >>> No, that is just another straw man argument of yours. >> >> No, it was a question, provoked by your statements. > > Look up “straw man argument”. It was _not_ only a question. It was an > insinuation. > >> Insulting of others is low way of thinking >> and is common case >> among scientists of 3rd or 4th order. > > This could be taken as an insult. could it be taken as "Shot goose has the loudest shout" ? You are hard on others, while soft toward yourself. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 10:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpglc$ta$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513247 |
Dne 13/08/2015 v 15:22 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > > A “recoiling emitting plasma particle”, what crankish nonsense. Read on the > plasma state of matter, and stellar nucleosynthesis, before further > comments, will you? > When a ion in plasma emits a photon with momentum p, ion recoils gains the opposite momentum difference -p. Similarly for absorption. Where is the nonsense ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 10:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2683477.yThglX1AIT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514159 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 13/08/2015 v 15:22 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> A “recoiling emitting plasma particle”, what crankish nonsense. Read on
>> the plasma state of matter, and stellar nucleosynthesis, before further
>> comments, will you?
>
> When a ion in plasma emits a photon with momentum p,
> ion recoils gains the opposite momentum difference -p.
>
> Similarly for absorption.
>
> Where is the nonsense ?
You took my statement out of context. To begin with, this is only true in
the *individual ion’s* rest frame.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 13:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpqq7$8fg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514173 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 10:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 13/08/2015 v 15:22 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> A “recoiling emitting plasma particle”, what crankish nonsense. Read on >>> the plasma state of matter, and stellar nucleosynthesis, before further >>> comments, will you? >> >> When a ion in plasma emits a photon with momentum p, >> ion recoils gains the opposite momentum difference -p. >> >> Similarly for absorption. >> >> Where is the nonsense ? > > You took my statement out of context. No, I did not. I was addressing your objection against expression. “recoiling emitting plasma particle”. But if you did not object to that expression, I was mistaken and withdraw my comment. > To begin with, this is only true in > the *individual ion’s* rest frame. No. This is true, if there is no other momentum exchange. If there is, there is additional momentum change due this exchange, not cancelling the effect, if it was not there. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2419691.FutzLs4vGf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514194 |
Poutnik wrote: > Dne 16/08/2015 v 10:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >> Poutnik wrote: >>> Dne 13/08/2015 v 15:22 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>>> A “recoiling emitting plasma particle”, what crankish nonsense. Read >>>> on the plasma state of matter, and stellar nucleosynthesis, before >>>> further comments, will you? >>> When a ion in plasma emits a photon with momentum p, >>> ion recoils gains the opposite momentum difference -p. >>> >>> Similarly for absorption. >>> >>> Where is the nonsense ? >> You took my statement out of context. > > No, I did not. […] Yes, you did. The statement was made in the context of a specific claim of someone else. > [tl;dr] -- PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 17:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqq8rn$3rb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514288 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:21 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/08/2015 v 10:43 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> Poutnik wrote: >>>> Dne 13/08/2015 v 15:22 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>>>> A “recoiling emitting plasma particle”, what crankish nonsense. Read >>>>> on the plasma state of matter, and stellar nucleosynthesis, before >>>>> further comments, will you? >>>> When a ion in plasma emits a photon with momentum p, >>>> ion recoils gains the opposite momentum difference -p. >>>> >>>> Similarly for absorption. >>>> >>>> Where is the nonsense ? >>> You took my statement out of context. >> >> No, I did not. […] > > Yes, you did. The statement was made in the context of a specific claim of > someone else. I can imagine it was in context of your overreacting. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 01:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7461341.L6YsdKe0aM@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #512527 |
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> When that photon left the sun, the sun also recoiled a little in the
>>> opposite direction.
>> Your other ideas aside: What about the other photons?
>
> It recoils from them as well.
>
> Since the sun is spherically symmetric with photons going in all
> direction, it all pretty much adds up to zero, and the sun doesn't move.
The Sun is not a solid body. Since the two of you are arguing based on
Newtonian mechanics (which is interesting to say the least, given the nature
of the photon), if the Sun recoiled in all directions simultaneously, it
would have to shrink. However, no shrinking of the Sun due to recoiling
from photon emissions has been reported to date. (It does shrink as it
loses mass–energy, ca. 4.289 × 10¹² g∕s, by emission of radiation.)
> (not that we could measure the recoil from a single photon of something as
> massive as the sun)
Or, because the Sun is basically *a ball of hot plasma*, it does not recoil
at all, in any direction, but rotates slower and cools down instead as it
loses momentum by emission of electromagnetic radiation.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-10 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqbcpq$bvc$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #512575 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> Since the sun is spherically symmetric with photons going in all >> direction, it all pretty much adds up to zero, and the sun doesn't move. >The Sun is not a solid body. Since the two of you are arguing based on >Newtonian mechanics (which is interesting to say the least, given the nature >of the photon), if the Sun recoiled in all directions simultaneously, it >would have to shrink. However, no shrinking of the Sun due to recoiling >from photon emissions has been reported to date. Newtonian mechanics works well enough for the emitting plasma particle's behavior, or the sun as a whole. The (slight) force trying to shrink the sun is counterbalanced by its heat trying to expand the plasma and it's in steady state. You are probably right that it's best to consider just the emitting plasma particle rather than the sun as a whole since it's not solid, but it's still true that the net reaction of the whole sun recoiling is still accurate (as Newtonian mechanics demands) even if the recoil of the sun as a whole is just a very slight shift caused by the motion of one of its components. >Or, because the Sun is basically *a ball of hot plasma*, it does not recoil >at all, in any direction, but rotates slower and cools down instead as it >loses momentum by emission of electromagnetic radiation. If you add the sum total of the motion of all the zillions of ions/electrons that compose the sun before and after there will be a very slight net shift. Momentum is conserved. The energy of the photon, of course, does cool the sun slightly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 13:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3395304.78prYaifWP@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #512589 |
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Since the sun is spherically symmetric with photons going in all
>>> direction, it all pretty much adds up to zero, and the sun doesn't move.
>> The Sun is not a solid body. Since the two of you are arguing based on
>> Newtonian mechanics (which is interesting to say the least, given the
>> nature of the photon), if the Sun recoiled in all directions
>> simultaneously, it
>> would have to shrink. However, no shrinking of the Sun due to recoiling
>> from photon emissions has been reported to date.
>
> Newtonian mechanics works well enough for the emitting plasma particle's
> behavior, or the sun as a whole.
Utter nonsense. Stellar dynamics is the quintessential evidence that both
special and general relativity are correct, and that classical mechanics
suffices as an approximation only for *low* speeds, *low* energies and so
on. In particular, E_kin = mv²∕2 and p = mv from classical mechanics *do
not hold* for massless photons: their kinetic energy is _not_ zero, and
their momentum is not zero; they are moving at *the speed of light* instead.
> The (slight) force trying to shrink the sun is counterbalanced by its heat
> trying to expand the plasma and it's in steady state.
You wish.
> You are probably right that it's best to consider just the emitting plasma
> particle
There you go again: “the emitting plasma particle”? Do you even know what a
plasma is?
>> Or, because the Sun is basically *a ball of hot plasma*, it does not
>> recoil at all, in any direction, but rotates slower and cools down
>> instead as it loses momentum by emission of electromagnetic radiation.
>
> If you add the sum total of the motion of all the zillions of
> ions/electrons that compose the sun before and after there will be a
> very slight net shift.
Cite evidence.
> Momentum is conserved.
Of that there is no doubt. However, I debate that any momentum is
transported by any recoiling of stellar matter. Photons are _not_ like
little energetic cannonballs as (the two of) you like to believe.
> The energy of the photon, of course, does cool the sun slightly.
Nonsense. If you knew what a plasma is in the first place, you would know
that its temperature is more or less equivalent to the velocity of its
constituents, and that
E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² (1)
whereas E is energy, p is momentum, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and m
is mass. As for the photon (which, I should add, is not a “plasma
particle”, as you apparently believe), m = 0, and so
E = pc (2)
= ℎc∕λ = ℎf. (3)
IOW, the “relativistic mass”, which is equal to its energy, and the
momentum, of a photon all depend only on the wavelength/frequency of the
electromagnetic radiation it emerges as a constituent of under collision
conditions [Einstein confirmed this in 1905 in his work on the photoelectric
effect, and later showed the relation between Planck’s equation (3) and
mass–energy equivalence (1)(2)]. And it is the momentum that a photon (or
rather, zillions of photons per second) carries away from the Sun that
causes the Sun either to cool down or its rotation to become slower. It is
the energy that it carries away that causes the Sun to shrink; _not_ because
of any recoiling, but because of the mass–energy equivalence it thereby
loses mass as well (fear not: calculations show that the mass of the Sun is
so large, it will not shrink considerably during its lifetime merely due to
emission of radiation or other particles).
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqib3n$p12$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #513222 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> Newtonian mechanics works well enough for the emitting plasma particle's >> behavior, or the sun as a whole. >Utter nonsense. Stellar dynamics is the quintessential evidence that both >special and general relativity are correct, and that classical mechanics >suffices as an approximation only for *low* speeds, *low* energies and so >on. That's why I wrote that Newtonian mechanics works for the plasma particles and the sun as a whole, not the photon. >> The (slight) force trying to shrink the sun is counterbalanced by its heat >> trying to expand the plasma and it's in steady state. >You wish. The sun is hot and is trying to expand. Gravity and the recoil from photons emitted outward counter this. The sun has been around for billions of years, it's in steady state. Of course the shrinkage from the photons is trivial, but is nonzero. >> If you add the sum total of the motion of all the zillions of >> ions/electrons that compose the sun before and after there will be a >> very slight net shift. >Cite evidence. >> Momentum is conserved. That's your evidence. >> The energy of the photon, of course, does cool the sun slightly. >Nonsense. If you knew what a plasma is in the first place, you would know >that its temperature is more or less equivalent to the velocity of its >constituents, and that Energy is conserved as well. As hot things radiate photons, they cool off, as conservation of energy requires. Of course the sun is constantly fusing hydrogen which replaces this energy, so it won't actually drop in temperature for billions of years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 08:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6581e19-4873-44ac-8cb8-348749225c25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #513273 |
Explain wave trains. Because single photons don't come from the Sun- wave trains do. How does your Hydrogen atom emit "a" photon, and then that photon gets into lockstep with thousands of others????? ????? Which "sun" are you talking about? Couldn't be ours. Which "reality" are you talking about? Couldn't be ours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 10:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqie45$39p$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #513275 |
On 8/13/2015 10:13 AM, john wrote: > Explain wave trains. > Because single photons don't come > from the Sun- wave trains do. > How does your Hydrogen atom > emit "a" photon, and then that photon > gets into lockstep with thousands of > others????? What makes you think that photons get into lockstep? You have this image that if light exhibits a wavelength oscillation, then this means you've got a whole slew of photons all wiggling in lockstep with each other? No. Photons that are all in phase with each other -- lockstep as you call it -- come from a laser. It's called coherent light. Sunlight is not coherent. The sun is not a laser. I think you just have some goofy idea about what a wavetrain means for the photons in it. > ????? > Which "sun" are you talking about? > Couldn't be ours. > Which "reality" are you talking about? > Couldn't be ours. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f873758-d0da-4cb9-881a-d22a3f2e1f0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #513280 |
yes, but Young's two-pikhole experiment used sunlight (from another pinhole in hte wall of the barn > Sunlight is not coherent. The sun is not a laser. > > I think you just have some goofy idea about what a wavetrain means for > the photons in it. > > > ????? > > Which "sun" are you talking about? > > Couldn't be ours. > > Which "reality" are you talking about? > > Couldn't be ours. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 10:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c04ea5fe-db91-475b-a6da-51cf73901dcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #513280 |
Books I read on the sun says photons do not arrive individually, but in wave trains up to several hundred photons long. I guess the books are wrong, hey, Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web