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 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqiojf$u6n$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #513293 |
On 8/13/2015 12:00 PM, john wrote: > Books I read on the sun says photons > do not arrive individually, > but in wave trains up to several > hundred photons long. Maybe you could cite the books. Title, author, page. > I guess the books are wrong, hey, Odd? Maybe. Let's look at the books you've read that say that. If you can't remember what books you've read, maybe you don't remember accurately what the book said, either. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqif0m$rlk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #513275 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >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????? >????? Lockstep? WTF are you talking about? The sun is not a laser. Read up on black body radiation for more details on sunlight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 07:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqki29$9rp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513275 |
On 8/13/2015 11:13 AM, john wrote: > Explain wave trains. > Because single photons don't come > from the Sun- wave trains do. Kooks of the world. Join hands. Get on the wave train. Wave train. -- Cut off one head, two more shall take its place. HAIL HYDRA! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f822cc63-fd23-446e-b294-ecd219fe720c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #513490 |
til; you have a nice definition of "photon, that does not rely on the nonparticle nature of waves, forged aboud id > > Explain wave trains. > > Because single photons don't come > > from the Sun- wave trains do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 20:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <7985057.QRbx3Ejx8E@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #513273 |
Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.
How did you get the idea that the constituents of the Sun, which as I said
is basically a hot plasma, would move at low speeds, and there would be low
energies involved?
> [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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 19:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqiqbg$lkr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #513317 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >> 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. >How did you get the idea that the constituents of the Sun, which as I said >is basically a hot plasma, would move at low speeds, and there would be low >energies involved? Let's see. The sun's surface temperature T is 5778K, and the rms speed of a particle in a plasma is sqrt(3RT/M). For an electron, its mass in AMU is .000548, thus the RMS speed is 512563 m/s. This is .0017c which is small enough for Newtonian mechanics. Protons and helium nuclei are heavier and therefore will move slower.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felipe Delgado <fd@spreadspectrum.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mqir42$5ag$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #513325 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>How did you get the idea that the constituents of the Sun, which as I >>said is basically a hot plasma, would move at low speeds, and there >>would be low energies involved? > > Let's see. The sun's surface temperature T is 5778K, and the rms speed > of a particle in a plasma is sqrt(3RT/M). For an electron, its mass in > AMU is .000548, thus the RMS speed is 512563 m/s. This is .0017c which > is small enough for Newtonian mechanics. Protons and helium nuclei are > heavier and therefore will move slower. Doesn't matter. The Sun is a refrigerator, hot outside, freezing inside. This is how refrigerators works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 15:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2951940.KlyoF5xjKR@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #513325 |
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> 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.
>> How did you get the idea that the constituents of the Sun, which as I
>> said is basically a hot plasma, would move at low speeds, and there would
>> be low energies involved?
>
> Let's see.
Yes, let’s see.
> The sun's
Mistake #1. It’s “the Sun”, not “the sun”.
> surface temperature T is 5778K,
Mistake #2. The surface temperature of the Sun is irrelevant. As I have
told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the Sun. Any
recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the photons are
either produced or emitted.
> and the rms speed of a particle in a plasma is sqrt(3RT/M). For an
> electron, its mass in AMU is .000548, thus the RMS speed is 512563 m/s.
Mistake #3. The plasma in the Sun is overall _not_ an electron plasma, and
certainly not on the surface of the Sun.
It is also doubtful whether this equation applies to a plasma.
> This is .0017c which is small enough for Newtonian mechanics.
Well, γ(0.0017c) = 1.000001445, so it depends on what you multiply that
with. But v ≫ 0.0017 c here.
> Protons and helium nuclei are heavier and therefore will move slower.
See above.
Your equation is probably wrong, and your T and M are certainly wrong.
And so your "calculated" speed is utterly wrong.
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 12:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqpo88$ts7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #513858 |
Dne 15/08/2015 v 15:38 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > > Mistake #2. The surface temperature of the Sun is irrelevant. As I have > told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the Sun. Any > recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the photons are > either produced or emitted. Mistake #1 Photons produced in the Sun core never leave the Sun, as plasma is highly opaque for radiation. Energy gets from the Sun core to regions close to the Sun surface by near endless chain of absorption and re-radiation. This takes long time, weeks or months, reportedly by some calculations. For the outer Sun layers ( cca above 0.9 Rs ?? ), plasma convection becomes major way of energy transfer toward surface. Photons radiated to the space by the Sun are produced at thin surface layer, following Planck and Kirchhoff laws for BB radiation at this T ( with real deviations ). -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <3155138.BU9sSTgYvL@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514185 |
Poutnik wrote: > Dne 15/08/2015 v 15:38 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >> Mistake #2. The surface temperature of the Sun is irrelevant. As I have >> told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the Sun. Any >> recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the photons are >> either produced or emitted. > > Mistake #1 Not *my* mistake. > Photons produced in the Sun core never leave the Sun, > as plasma is highly opaque for radiation. > […] You are really good at straw man arguments. Where have you learned it? > [tl;dr] AISB. -- PointedEars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqq6qi$qo4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514279 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:04 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 15/08/2015 v 15:38 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> Mistake #2. The surface temperature of the Sun is irrelevant. As I have >>> told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the Sun. Any >>> recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the photons are >>> either produced or emitted. >> >> Mistake #1 > > Not *my* mistake. > >> Photons produced in the Sun core never leave the Sun, >> as plasma is highly opaque for radiation. >> […] > > You are really good at straw man arguments. Where have you learned it? Aside many other places - at yourself, :-) as you said so by other words as well. "And those photos are absorbed by the solar plasma after having traveled only short distances. When they are re-emitted, that happens in a random direction and usually at a slightly lower energy”. First in an amateur astronomy course at an observatory in 1982. Latest in the timeline of supposed Universe development, when is supposed that universe was highly opaque until recombination of ions and electrons 380000 after BB. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 16:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1954282.8zvCD2iTY7@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514290 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:04 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 15/08/2015 v 15:38 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>>> Mistake #2. The surface temperature of the Sun is irrelevant. As I
>>>> have told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the
>>>> Sun. Any recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the
>>>> photons are either produced or emitted.
>>> Mistake #1
>> Not *my* mistake.
>>
>>> Photons produced in the Sun core never leave the Sun,
>>> as plasma is highly opaque for radiation.
>>> […]
Figures that you would not admit your own statements as evidence.
>> You are really good at straw man arguments. Where have you learned it?
>
> Aside many other places - at yourself, :-)
> as you said so by other words as well.
>
> "And those photos are absorbed by the solar plasma after having traveled
> only short distances. When they are re-emitted, that happens in a
> random direction and usually at a slightly lower energy”.
In other words, I have said exactly the same as you. If you call what I
said a mistake, then you have made the same mistake as I did.
> First in an amateur astronomy course at an observatory in 1982.
> Latest in the timeline of supposed Universe development,
> when is supposed that universe was highly opaque
> until recombination of ions and electrons 380000 after BB.
You are blathering. Now shut up before I am getting impolite.
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 17:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqq8ja$2o0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514293 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:33 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:04 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> Poutnik wrote: >>>> Dne 15/08/2015 v 15:38 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>>>> Mistake #2. The surface temperature of the Sun is irrelevant. As I >>>>> have told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the >>>>> Sun. Any recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the >>>>> photons are either produced or emitted. >>>> Mistake #1 >>> Not *my* mistake. >>> >>>> Photons produced in the Sun core never leave the Sun, >>>> as plasma is highly opaque for radiation. >>>> […] > > Figures that you would not admit your own statements as evidence. Only for what I have said, unless they contained reference. > >>> You are really good at straw man arguments. Where have you learned it? >> >> Aside many other places - at yourself, :-) >> as you said so by other words as well. >> >> "And those photos are absorbed by the solar plasma after having traveled >> only short distances. When they are re-emitted, that happens in a >> random direction and usually at a slightly lower energy”. > > In other words, I have said exactly the same as you. If you call what I > said a mistake, then you have made the same mistake as I did. Have you said this ? " As I have told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the Sun. Any recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the photons are either produced or emitted." Photons of various energies and origin are produced within the whole Sun volume. > >> First in an amateur astronomy course at an observatory in 1982. >> Latest in the timeline of supposed Universe development, >> when is supposed that universe was highly opaque >> until recombination of ions and electrons 380000 after BB. > > You are blathering. Now shut up before I am getting impolite. Rather, you are loosing understaning skill, you may be tired. Were you polite ? when ? Have you learnt it somewhere recently ? -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 19:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2688426.pSMsc18cMh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514304 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:33 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> Dne 16/08/2015 v 16:04 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>> Dne 15/08/2015 v 15:38 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>>>>> Mistake #2. The surface temperature of the Sun is irrelevant. As I
>>>>>> have told you before, photons are not produced on the surface of the
>>>>>> Sun. Any recoiling that you imagine to happen would happen where the
>>>>>> photons are either produced or emitted.
>>>>> Mistake #1
>>>> Not *my* mistake.
>>>>
>>>>> Photons produced in the Sun core never leave the Sun,
>>>>> as plasma is highly opaque for radiation.
>>>>> […]
>> Figures that you would not admit your own statements as evidence.
>
> Only for what I have said, unless they contained reference.
I do not know what is the meaning of this and how it could possibly relate
to what I wrote. IOW, it is gibberish. If you want to make an argument in
English, I suggest you learn at least basic English. With a discussion
partner like me, who by confirmation of several native speakers considers
themselves fluent in English although it is not their native language, I
strongly suggest you be fluent in it as well. Otherwise we will forever be
talking past each other: You will not understand what I write, or will
misunderstand it, and you will present your arguments in an incoherent
fashion.
The fact stands that you are not admitting your own statements as evidence.
Your statements that say exactly the same as I have said, while at the same
time you are saying that I made a mistake. If you are correct and I have
made a mistake, then you have made the same mistake. But if you have not
made a mistake, then neither have I, and it is incorrect of you to say that
I made one (and *that* would be your mistake then).
>>>> You are really good at straw man arguments. Where have you learned it?
>>> Aside many other places - at yourself, :-)
>>> as you said so by other words as well.
>>> "And those photos are absorbed by the solar plasma after having traveled
>>> only short distances. When they are re-emitted, that happens in a
>>> random direction and usually at a slightly lower energy”.
>> In other words, I have said exactly the same as you. If you call what I
>> said a mistake, then you have made the same mistake as I did.
>
> Have you said this ?
>
> " As I have told you before, photons are not produced
> on the surface of the Sun. Any recoiling that you imagine to happen
> would happen where the photons are either produced or emitted."
Yes, I have.
> Photons of various energies and origin are produced within the whole Sun
> volume.
That is a claim. By asserting the previous claim, it is your claim now. So
if you want to be taken seriously, if this discussion should go anywhere,
you need to cite evidence that it probably true. Then you would at least
have an advantage over the person who I first debated on this.
AFAIK, there is no evidence that photons are *produced* on the surface of
the Sun. That they obviously emerge from the surface of the Sun (and
eventually reach Earth, among other places in the Universe) does not mean
that they are produced there. It is important to distinguish between those
two concepts.
Apparently I need to break it down for you: The claim that I debated was
that photons are produced on the surface of the Sun. The claim was used to
assert that because the temperature on the surface of the Sun was “too low”,
classical mechanics, which was called – a telltale sign for crank science –
“Newtonian physics” by them, would suffice to describe the photon emission
of the Sun, and to compute a recoiling speed of the Sun. Consider this, not
of individual particles, but *of the Sun itself*.
No evidence was provided to support that claim. However, there is plenty of
evidence that photons are produced in areas of the Sun closer to the core
where the temperature is higher than on the surface, and where therefore the
kinetic energies of the constituents of (stellar) matter (which is in the
plasma phase), and of particles that one usually does not subsume under
matter, like photons and neutrinos are so high that classical mechanics no
longer suffices.
In particular, we (well, we non-cranks) already *know* without a shadow of a
doubt that classical mechanics does _not_ suffice for describing photons.
Photons are a concept from quantum mechanics which is based in part on
special relativity. Anyone who doubts that is *actually* adhering to *their
disproved understanding of photons* instead, of corpuscles, little balls of
light energy, as Newton thought.
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 20:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqqkqp$pd0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514367 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 19:24 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >>> Figures that you would not admit your own statements as evidence. >> >> Only for what I have said, unless they contained reference. > > I do not know what is the meaning of this and how it could possibly relate > to what I wrote. IOW, it is gibberish. If you want to make an argument in > English, I suggest you learn at least basic English. With a discussion > partner like me, who by confirmation of several native speakers considers > themselves fluent in English although it is not their native language, I > strongly suggest you be fluent in it as well. Otherwise we will forever be > talking past each other: You will not understand what I write, or will > misunderstand it, and you will present your arguments in an incoherent > fashion. Hm, I do not have problems to understand what I read, or others usually do not have problems what I write. But there are frequent problems in case of strong disagreement discussion, and nearly never in consensus, so we cannot ignore this factor, together with nitpicking that occurs at similar occasions. There are people who do want to understand and there are others who do not. The former understand much worse English than the latter. > > The fact stands that you are not admitting your own statements as evidence. Only as evidence of what I have said. If I said there aree green dwarfs on the Moon, it is not evidence of them. > Your statements that say exactly the same as I have said, while at the same > time you are saying that I made a mistake. If you are correct and I have > made a mistake, then you have made the same mistake. But if you have not > made a mistake, then neither have I, and it is incorrect of you to say that > I made one (and *that* would be your mistake then). Now you put this out of context, as it seems you joined differennt portions of different posts together. Better to return to original particles and statement. I do not have problems to admit mistakes. My statements are based on what I have learnt, as yourself. Some of them are true, and some of them may be mistakes. Same as your ones. > >>>>> You are really good at straw man arguments. Where have you learned it? >>>> Aside many other places - at yourself, :-) >>>> as you said so by other words as well. >>>> "And those photos are absorbed by the solar plasma after having traveled >>>> only short distances. When they are re-emitted, that happens in a >>>> random direction and usually at a slightly lower energy”. >>> In other words, I have said exactly the same as you. If you call what I >>> said a mistake, then you have made the same mistake as I did. >> >> Have you said this ? >> >> " As I have told you before, photons are not produced >> on the surface of the Sun. Any recoiling that you imagine to happen >> would happen where the photons are either produced or emitted." > > Yes, I have. > >> Photons of various energies and origin are produced within the whole Sun >> volume. > > That is a claim. While what you have said is a claim as well. > By asserting the previous claim, it is your claim now. So > if you want to be taken seriously, if this discussion should go anywhere, > you need to cite evidence that it probably true. Then you would at least > have an advantage over the person who I first debated on this. Planck and Kirchhoff laws of thermal radiation. > > AFAIK, there is no evidence that photons are *produced* on the surface of > the Sun. That they obviously emerge from the surface of the Sun (and > eventually reach Earth, among other places in the Universe) does not mean > that they are produced there. It is important to distinguish between those > two concepts. It is quite old news to astronomers that they are. General radiative properties of plasma are known. Free charges are highly absorptive for photons, in contrary to neutral atoms. If absorbtion rate of a Sun surface layers is 99 % of 550 nm in e.g. 100 m thick layer, } 99% or radiated 550 nm light is emitted within this 100 m layer, supposing we can neglect thermal gradient. With gradient number somewhat shifts, but principle stays. And due convection, it is quite well mixed up. > > Apparently I need to break it down for you: The claim that I debated was > that photons are produced on the surface of the Sun. The claim was used to > assert that because the temperature on the surface of the Sun was “too low”, > classical mechanics, which was called – a telltale sign for crank science – > “Newtonian physics” by them, would suffice to describe the photon emission > of the Sun, and to compute a recoiling speed of the Sun. Consider this, not > of individual particles, but *of the Sun itself*. As I said, recoiling the Sun is due spherical symmetry useless topic. Only emitting radiation pressure makes sense to consider, due recoiling integration over the area, but I guess it is minimal. > > No evidence was provided to support that claim. However, there is plenty of > evidence that photons are produced in areas of the Sun closer to the core > where the temperature is higher than on the surface, and where therefore the Rather otherwise. More evidence for surface photons. > kinetic energies of the constituents of (stellar) matter (which is in the > plasma phase), and of particles that one usually does not subsume under > matter, like photons and neutrinos are so high that classical mechanics no > longer suffices. You said yourself core origined photons get absorbed in short distance, and then they are re emitted. This process continues toward surface with decreasing energy and increasing counts. In last region it is accompanied by plasma convection. > > In particular, we (well, we non-cranks) already *know* without a shadow of a > doubt that classical mechanics does _not_ suffice for describing photons. I do not object. > Photons are a concept from quantum mechanics which is based in part on > special relativity. Anyone who doubts that is *actually* adhering to *their > disproved understanding of photons* instead, of corpuscles, little balls of > light energy, as Newton thought. > I do not object. Well, even Feynman liked this concept in his popular QED book, even if he knew why he did so. . -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 22:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1807356.q6Z5mJ7pgx@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514393 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/08/2015 v 19:24 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> The fact stands that you are not admitting your own statements as
>> evidence.
>
> Only as evidence of what I have said. If I said there aree green dwarfs
> on the Moon, it is not evidence of them.
OK, to be blunt: The evidence that you are not admitting are your statements
that went out to show me wrong by *repeating* what I just said.
>> Your statements that say exactly the same as I have said, while at the
>> same time you are saying that I made a mistake. If you are correct and I
>> have made a mistake, then you have made the same mistake. But if you
>> have not made a mistake, then neither have I, and it is incorrect of you
>> to say that I made one (and *that* would be your mistake then).
>
> Now you put this out of context, as it seems you joined
> differennt portions of different posts together.
I am not. I am pointing out to you that what you said was no different to
what I have said, and still you have said that I was wrong. So either both
of us are wrong or none of us is. Tertium non datur.
> Better to return to original particles and statement.
>
> I do not have problems to admit mistakes.
Until you find it within you to admit the mistake above, there really is
nothing more to discuss as I would only be wasting my time (even more than
it seems that I already have debating you).
> [tl;dr]
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 22:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqqs9r$q0t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514460 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 22:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/08/2015 v 19:24 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> The fact stands that you are not admitting your own statements as >>> evidence. >> >> Only as evidence of what I have said. If I said there aree green dwarfs >> on the Moon, it is not evidence of them. > > OK, to be blunt: The evidence that you are not admitting are your statements > that went out to show me wrong by *repeating* what I just said. Not if put out of context like that. > >>> Your statements that say exactly the same as I have said, while at the >>> same time you are saying that I made a mistake. If you are correct and I >>> have made a mistake, then you have made the same mistake. But if you >>> have not made a mistake, then neither have I, and it is incorrect of you >>> to say that I made one (and *that* would be your mistake then). >> >> Now you put this out of context, as it seems you joined >> differennt portions of different posts together. > > I am not. I am pointing out to you that what you said was no different to I was different, you did not noticed. > what I have said, and still you have said that I was wrong. So either both > of us are wrong or none of us is. Tertium non datur. > >> Better to return to original particles and statement. >> >> I do not have problems to admit mistakes. > > Until you find it within you to admit the mistake above, there really is > nothing more to discuss as I would only be wasting my time (even more than > it seems that I already have debating you). > Start with your mistakes, if you made any ever. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 20:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqqlkd$tld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514367 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 19:24 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > I suggest you learn at least basic English. I work for 8 years in company where English is an official written and spoken language. By confirmation of several my colleagues my skills are above company average. BTW, conference call with Swiss guys or India people may be challenging, due accents. I am occasionally asked for idea formulations of important emails. My weakness is typing, even in my native language. I am an old school 2-4 finger unreliable typist, who sometimes cannot believe what I have just typed. Also, by over editing long sentences I sometimes put it into mess , combining different correct versions into final nonsense. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 22:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4896113.20u48HQqs8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #514403 |
Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/08/2015 v 19:24 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> I suggest you learn at least basic English.
>
> I work for 8 years in company
> where English is an official written and spoken language.
>
> By confirmation of several my colleagues
> my skills are above company average.
That may be true but even then it does not mean anything. More via PM.
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 22:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqqtbo$um8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #514462 |
Dne 16/08/2015 v 22:32 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): > Poutnik wrote: > >> Dne 16/08/2015 v 19:24 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a): >>> I suggest you learn at least basic English. >> >> I work for 8 years in company >> where English is an official written and spoken language. >> >> By confirmation of several my colleagues >> my skills are above company average. > > That may be true but even then it does not mean anything. More via PM. It does not mean it does mean nothing, just because you did not find it. OTOH, your manners observed in communications with others are under average, and it does mean something. I bet your mother would not be proud of it. You should start learning not to abuse English, it is much worse than using it wrong. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web