BanterinBoson

If that be the case, then I'd love to stay and banter with you guys, but politics. Swanson, the video should be cued at 3:58: I'm no einstein, but I can relate to the not kissing up bit.... especially merely to cater to an anally-retentive obsession with topic relevancy of a discussion that will never be viewed by another carbon-based entity once buried among the pages of long-dead topics. Or perhaps the condition is a Napoleonesque desire to subjugate; either way, I'm not hanging around to find out while in the face of 1000s of dying dime-a-dozen forums who really should be doing what they can to keep folks around rather than barking orders to run people off. https://trends.builtwith.com/cms/forum-software I just need to spend more time studying and less time posting. Y'all have fun with your organizational compulsions.

Are you saying directing the focus to me was not directing the focus to me? I'm not clear on what you mean by "Please re-read and apply this metric, and you'll see there is nothing personal about it." I don't want to get anyone in trouble, so it's not a big deal; I'll just move along rather than entertaining the prospect of arguing my side since there is nothing good that can come from that: either I win and get Studiot in trouble or I lose... either way, I lose. I feel there is too much emotional involvement in this thread and it's much easier to pose the question on a different site with different people who cannot possibly be emotionally involved (yet). It's like expecting a pay raise without needing to change employers; unfortunately, we have to bounce around to find better deals. I have no idea about the internals of lasers... all I know is they cut steel by melting which seems hot to me. So it's non-mechanical? Are lasers mechanical? They would have to be in order to do work, as you said before. What about the definition regarding entropy? What about the definition saying the only distinction between heat and work is direction? Simply saying they are all correct does not help me. Cool as in cool or cool as in cool? Negative temperatures are hotter than any positive temperatures.

You'll have to elaborate on the distinction because it's not immediately obvious and my mindreading machine is in the shop. So you accept that 1+2+3+... = -1/12? Yes, but then he goes on to say "That means there should be an attractive force between the metallic plates, which also seems ludicrous, since classical physics suggests there should be no force." There should be a force, which is ludicrous because an erroneous method of physics says there should be no force. Therefore, why is it ludicrous that there should be a force? Can I make a peach tree produce apples? Yes, it's called grafting and almost all fruit trees you buy will be grafted onto a different kind of tree. Some folks have one tree producing several different kinds of fruit. Could I make the apple portion of the tree produce another kind of fruit? Not me personally, but I'm sure humanity can monkey with the dna and make it happen eventually. Then you'll say it's the dna that represents nature and a tree will always produce what the dna says it will and now we're on a slippery slope where you'll always have a part of nature that you will call the law until that is broken and then you'll cling to the next more-fundamental law while never conceding how humanity pushes nature around. You may say it's a law that information cannot be transmitted faster than light, but what would you say after we read one day that they've done it through quantum entanglement or who-knows-what? Well, then it's a more-fundamental law governing the process. And then we break that one and here comes yet another proclamation that it's an even-more-fundamental law. On and on the slippery slope goes. Now if we turn the slope the other way, then we can see all the "laws" we currently break today. Or, should I say, all the regularities they once called laws. The only law is what is possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxi-IUnCN_8 I watched, er, listened to this video about einstein last night https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDFoYeyQ4Y In it, they said he published a paper and almost no one cared. If not for planck recognizing einstein, who knows where we'd be today. In the video they said if einstein had gone to college, he would not have been very good at kissing-up to a senior professor and therefore we can thank our lucky stars that he was never subjected to university politics. The way people operate and as tribalistic as they are, I feel entitled to be condescending. No one wants to honestly learn or teach, but they want to strut around showing off their big egos. If folks didn't act like such jerks, perhaps we'd be a little further along by now. Boltzmann killed himself. Galileo had to work around the church. Newton gave lectures to empty classrooms. Edison robbed Tesla. The smartest man in the US piddles his time on a farm instead of being seized upon and utilized in productive capacities by universities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." - Howard H. Aiken. That's gotta be the all-time best aphorism. Of course... more people throwing their weight around to hinder the free-exchange of ideas. Make sense. See above. Anything to prevent being wrong LOL! I don't need evidence that laws change; you need evidence that they don't in order to call them laws. That seems a well-articulated argument to preclude the belief in laws. Yes, the atom was named such from the Greek atomos which means undivided which is from tomos that means divided. Some philosophers consider the whole universe to be the atomos and any "things" or "events" inside are just arbitrary divisions of a continuous process.

Define evidence. Why does it matter if it is off topic? Why fight nature? Nevermind. I'll figure it out or ask the question on quora or something. Let's focus on other things. Yes It's not important. Yup Either a photon pops into existence all at once or it evolves into existence over time. Claiming a photon is a particle that cannot be divided necessitates that it pops into existence all at once because it cannot be divided (there can't be half a photon at one instance). Therefore, there is a discontinuity in reality meaning the particle appears, fully formed, in one instant. And since we can't have discontinuities in reality, then the photon cannot be a particle. How? If E=hf, then how would energy be divided? I've asked before for help in understanding how co2 can radiate IR in all directions, and if E=hf, then why does it matter that some of the IR goes to space and some to earth if E is purely a function of F. It seems intuitive to divide a 360 radiation pattern into 90 degree sections and then say one section has 1/4 of the energy, but E is purely a function of F and can't be divided like that. I've been confused for 2 weeks on this problem and have all but begged for someone to help. Not saying you're wrong, but what is the evidence for that? I'm curious. I wonder why it would be that there is a smallest size. It's not that I don't believe it because it argues against infinitely smaller sizes and I find that sensible. Could it have something to do with the smallest wavelength? Since waves don't have a size, then maybe it's better to suggest it has something to do with a highest frequency. If we take the highest-energy gamma ray known and then add more energy, what happens? I'm guessing it gains mass which interacts with the Higgs field and, consequently, slows down to become what we call a "particle". Perhaps a neutrino? What do you think of that idea? Anyway, if we work under the assumption that there is a highest frequency, then there is a smallest wavelength and that could be the reason there is a smallest size. Thoughts? No, I don't fully understand it. Thanks for looking. I think you may have to actually engage in farming or gardening to know what I'm talking about because "Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced and even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it." - John Keats. It's like trying to describe what "red" means to a blind person and it's one of those instances where if you don't understand, then I can't explain it. We'll have to drop this topic otherwise we'll keep going round and round and it's not that important.

Do you have evidence to support that assertion? All I can imagine that you could say is that the philosophy of science has demanded that all meaningful statements be supported by empirical evidence, which is itself just a philosophical construct without supporting empirical evidence. Everyone has a metaphysical assumption that they can't prove. I like this: (amusingly, the energy of a closed universe always works out to zero according to this definition) What's the problem? + + - = 0 and that's the way it ought to be otherwise there is something unaccounted for. If there were infinite energy, then one infinite positive would not cancel the other because infinity - infinity is not zero. Good. Glad we agree! Why could it absorb half? I never allowed for that with what I said. I said it would absorb 100% of the photon because of resonance. Resonance is the point of 180 degree wave cancellation and therefore 100% absorption. That point of absorption, defined by the point of resonance, is what causes the energy levels of the electron to be what they are. That is the assertion I would like for someone to explain to me why it is wrong. 3 people now have told me I am wrong, but none have showed me why I am wrong. Why is it not that resonance determines the energy levels of the electron? Composed of localized waves which is what a golf ball is composed of. Cutting a cake in half will not cut the temperature in half. The guy I linked to said you could, but it would only result in the creation of 2 new quarks. Cool. Copying statement here for reference: It is better to believe there is a god and to be wrong than to believe there isn't because our paradigm prevents transcendental thinking. Why would you disagree? By disagreeing, you are saying it is better to have a confining paradigm than to erroneously believe in god. By having a confining paradigm, you cannot discover what's outside the paradigm. But erroneously believing in god merely needs correction, yet the paradigm is still wide open. Choosing to believe in god or not wasn't a part of it. The problem was about what mindset to have and whether it is better to outright reject what doesn't have evidence or to believe what doesn't have evidence. Both are logically wrong, but which is least wrong? That was the point einstein was making which I feel was summed nicely by Blake in "A fool who persists in his folly will eventually become wise." Well, obviously, you admit you're wrong because you discover you're wrong. If you don't discover it, then you can't admit it. Discovering isn't the problem, it's not being able to admit error and it's particularly worrisome in folks who have devoted their whole lives to an idea because swallowing that pill is nigh impossible. I'd be interested in seeing those experiments. Claiming they are indivisible in this context is effectively claiming they are particles that cannot be divided instead of claiming they are waves that make no sense to divide. The reason a photon is indivisible is that it's a wave rather than a particle that cannot be divided and here you are using that "indivisible particleness" to necessitate that therefore the particle magically pops into existence as a discontinuity of reality because you think you may have seen experiments that say so (within some margin of error). I'd like to see the experiments so I can sort out what is really happening. Telling nature what to do doesn't equate to verbal commands, but instead of telling bugs to leave crops alone, we spray insecticides which tells them to leave it alone. People have grown crops without seed... ever hear of cloning? lol! They say "Plant pears for your heirs" because it takes decades before a pear tree will yield fruit when grown from seed, yet cloning a pear tree will yield pears the same year. Farming is completely unnatural. They cut down the trees and plants that have competed successfully to establish dominance and have replaced them with plants that have no chance for survival outside of the constant nursing we provide because they have evolved in an entirely different ecosystem. They monkey with the dna, accomplishing who knows what, then turning the frankensteins loose on the planet. Suffice it to say, telling nature what to do is what it means to be human. That seems to be the purpose of intellect... to tell dumb nature how to be better. Agreed.

You contradicted yourself. Either it is instant or it is not. You were attempting to show that 1+2+3+... should be the intuitive answer of infinity or, anyway, much larger than -1/12. "intuitive" was just a label to save time. The distinction that CM doesn't make reliable predictions at small scales is irrelevant because small scales was the topic and therefore CM should have never been mentioned in the entire article. I never implied a peach tree would produce apples, but planting a peach tree in the desert is fighting nature which is evidenced by the fact that you'd have to nurse it constantly just to keep it alive. In harmony with nature is planting peaches in areas where peaches have evolved to live. Laws of nature are observed regularities and some regularities are more regular than others and what we call a law of nature and what we call a preference of nature is just an arbitrary and artificial distinction. We can break some laws for a while just like swimming against the current, but eventually the current will reassert itself. Well there should be one. You think it's unreasonable because I expect too much, but that doesn't change the fact that there should be one. Look how this topic has evolved. Do you really think anyone, besides the AI bots, will ever read this thread? All this organization is wasted energy... we're lucky to have one person read it once. It's more fruitful to have it evolve how it wants rather than try to control nature I thought of that when I typed it and already knew a mobius strip is not a coin. I shouldn't have to. But in the day when they thought the atomos were indivisible particles, if I had said there is no such thing, then some guy would have said "You can't tell nature what to do." You see, it's not nature who I am telling Well, we know of no law saying that laws cannot spontaneously change. All the laws are is observed regularities. To assume that they are eternal and unbending laws is an error.

It is because you focus on ME and not the TOPIC. I would enjoy talking to you more if I were not the subject of the conversation. Perhaps YOU should start a topic in the psychology section I do not remember steadfastly refusing to discuss anything. Since the topic has now changed to psychology, here is the problem: I actually do like you, but interacting with you makes me feel like crap and the situation is out of my control because I cannot spontaneously make myself as smart as you'd like me to be. It seems no matter what I say, you're going to find some fault in how I replied... and it's not that I'm steadfastly against improving myself, but the frequency of occurrence is approaching 100% which leads me to believe there is no way to live up to your standards and any effort is futile. I'll concede to you that I am not the most observant person and I'm always the one who walks all over a snake without ever seeing it or makes a chess move without seeing the bishop lurking in the corner, so it's very possible I read right over a point you made and didn't see it, but for you to say my mind is made up is an offense against my character and integrity and is tantamount to calling me a liar. It's true I tend to stick to my guns, but I will not be an example of cognitive dissonance. If you show me evidence that I should change my mind, then I will change it and any evidence you think you have to the contrary is likely a misinterpretation on your part or perhaps a lack of perception on mine, but I assure you it is not because I am unable to be wrong. In this thread I was wrong about gamma rays and I was wrong about thinking EMWs affected matter regardless of charge and I'm sure I'll be wrong about more things, but I can't say I'm wrong until someone shows me how I am. I agree it is fascinating, but quite honestly, I'm considering taking the topic to another board because it has gotten too personal here and the answer you supplied, I can't make any sense of it. Perhaps there is a language barrier. Anyway, it's a cryptic answer and therefore the upvote indicates a tribalistic uniting against a common enemy (ie me), so that's my cue to seek greener pastures. And this answer is simply a statement; not an explanation. Another statement; not explanation. Lasers are much hotter than ambient. I asked how you would define it and that is the best you can do? Thanks, everyone, for your help, but I'm taking further questions to a different arena.

Love builds, but it may build destructive things. It depends on perspective. If you love your garden and seek to build it, then you're going to hate the pests and seek to destroy them because they threaten what you love. If you love your pet and seek to build a healthy animal, you will have to hate the parasites because they threaten the health of your pet. Do you have to be proud of your pet in order to hate the parasites? I'll leave it for you to decide. How do you define humility? We should carefully define terms before determining opposites since words only mean what you want them to mean. So before beginning any discussion we have to sort out what means what in order to communicate because what we are actually comparing are concepts where the words are merely labels for convenient conveyance of the concepts we have in mind. Often, disputes arise because folks are unable to agree on definitions to words, so determining agreeable definitions should be the first step to all conversation. Arrogance defined by dictionary.com is an offensive display of superiority or self-importance. By that definition (which is not the ultimate authority), arrogance is one of many possible results of pride (defined as the desire to command respect). There are 7 definitions for pride as a noun and 1 as a verb, and none capture the meaning I have in mind, but only aspects of it because pride is much deeper than a high or inordinate opinion of one's own importance, merit, or superiority. In fact, one can be proud of their humility and that concept is central to the idea of trading chains of iron for chains of gold where once we were proud of our sins which we boasted before the guys and now we're proud of our virtues and boast before the lord. It's the same trap made from different chains and therefore the potential for boasting is integral to pride. Paul said, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." That one verse does away with the practice of religion entirely because if there exists ANY work that can be done to improve our condition, then that accomplishment will be a reason to brag and pride comes back in. The whole point is to realize that there is nothing we can do and therefore no reason to boast about anything and that faith releases us from the grip of pride and that is what saves us while the ego is the aspect of us that dies. I like this short story: The Sly Man and the Devil Gurdjieff said that in order to be born, we must first die and in order to die, we must first be awake. I think you're on the right track and even if you are wrong here or there, you will eventually become right as long as you continue sniffing in the direction you are heading. I've gone as far as wondering if the whole and singular purpose of life (if life were to have a purpose) is to learn to overcome pride since no proud entity could ever be trusted in a situation of power and if there is a graduation to a higher existence, one cannot move up while lugging an ego; hence, why the meek inherit the earth and only the pure in heart can see god.

I'd be content just knowing how to figure it for one abstract molecule without the complications of the entire atmosphere. Reinventing wheels teaches me how to make wheels That's a helpful link and I will have to study that more. The last comment on the page tipped me off to Stefan-Boltzmann which allows me to describe power in terms of area of a blackbody, which is what co2 is at a certain frequency. At least I can say "this many watts goes to space and that many heads to earth", but first I have to decide how much area a co2 molecule has and what T will be. The Beer's law requires an optical depth, so I'm not sure that applies here. I'm still struggling to learn the nomenclature: Roughly, the temperature of a body at rest is a measure of the mean of the energy of the translational, vibrational and rotational motions of matter's particle constituents, such as molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. The full variety of these kinetic motions, along with potential energies of particles, and also occasionally certain other types of particle energy in equilibrium with these, make up the total internal energy of a substance. Internal energy is loosely called the heat energy or thermal energy in conditions when no work is done upon the substance by its surroundings, or by the substance upon the surroundings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature That looseness is what makes this difficult and the last thing I want to start doing is associating heat with stored energy. Maybe the best way to attack this is to make a spreadsheet of every term (heat, internal energy, thermal energy, radiance, spectral radiance, radiant flux, temperature, thermodynamic temperature, yada yada) so I can have it all in front of me to make sense of. The math and the concepts are straightforward, so the language is the only barrier. Huh? Why do you want to confuse me like that? lol! How is light from a laser not heat? How is a fluorescent light doing work? I'm getting a variety of answers: 1) In thermodynamics, heat is often contrasted with work: heat applies to individual particles (such as atoms or molecules), work applies to objects (or a system as a whole). Heat involves stochastic (or random) motion equally distributed among all degrees of freedom, while work is directional, confined to one or more specific degrees of freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat 2) Work is any energy transfer that does not carry entropy. Heat, on the other hand, is any energy transfer that carries entropy. 3) Work is the mechanical transfer of energy to a system or from a system by an external force on it. Heat is the non-mechanical transfer of energy from the environment to the system or from the system to the environment because of a temperature difference between the two. The conversion of mechanical energy (work) to heat is very efficient, nearly 100%. But the conversion of thermal energy (heat) to work is not so because heat is a low grade energy. https://www.quora.com/In-thermodynamics-what-is-the-difference-between-work-and-heat-I-was-thinking-about-this-when-studying-Carnot-Cycles-and-adiabatic-processes-How-can-a-system-do-work-in-isolation-What-is-it-doing-work-on-Where-is-that-energy-going I like this one: 4) You are right. Microscopically, work and heat are just about the same. Both involve molecular collisions transfer energy from one object to the other. Work involves a kind of "coherent" transfer in a manner of speaking, in which the collisions are predominantly, and to an extreme degree, in one direction. Also, typically the force is applied to one location on the object. And importantly, the boundary of the system is displaced. (E.g. translation or deformation) On the other hand, transfer of energy by heat is "incoherent", many directions, and typically in all directions. And importantly, the boundary of the system is not displaced. Finally, everyday phenomena fall into one or the other category, and they differ in their macroscopic behavior. Loosely speaking, when heat is transfered the temperature rises. When work is done, the boundary of the system changes. Of course adding heat generally also results in the boundary moving [say, expanding], and work generally results in a temperature change [Joule's experiment]. I'm trying to motivate the macroscopic separation between work and heat without a lengthy discussion. To the engineers who first worked all of this out, the very existence of atoms was unknown. To them, the separation between heat and work was very clear. They had little reason to view them as manifestations of the same microscopic process. They thought that heat was a physical fluid. In any event, their remarkable achievements have stood the test of time. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135539/why-work-w-and-heat-q-are-different-concepts What do you think? What's the best way to write distinct definitions for work and heat? Regardless how we excite the atom (photon or collision) it is still resonance that determines the energy level of the electron, right? So it's the mass and bond strengths that determine the energy levels. I don't understand why that would not be correct. Here is what I said before: It seems like it would be the resonance of the atom that determines the point where a photon would be absorbed and that would define the difference in energy levels. Not the other way around, which is the difference in energy levels determines if a photon is absorbed and that defines the resonance because it doesn't make sense that way. It's putting the cart before the horse. Right, as a function of mass and bond strengths which determine both resonance and energy levels. Well, I wasn't done replying to your post as I wasn't done studying it in hopes of replying with something that would be to your satisfaction. Not at all and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion as I took special care to prevent anyone from coming to that conclusion. Anyway, I've discovered the limits to my patience for walking on eggshells only to still be incapable of making you happy, so whatever. I'll figure it out with or without your help and if having your help means the continual negotiation of derogatory implication then I'd prefer to go-it alone. Thanks for trying. Thanks

The opposite of love is hate because love has no meaning without the contrasting backdrop of hate and in order to love, we must hate what threatens what we love. One cannot exist without the other. Neither love nor hate requires the existence of indifference to give meaning and if indifference is the opposite of love, it must also be the opposite of hate and that's nonsense since something can't have 2 opposites. Graphically: Love..... Indifference.... Hate. It's clear that the poles are love/hate and the midpoint is indifference. Positive..... No charge.... Negative. The midpoint = the summation of and consequent cancellation of the poles. The opposite of indifference is difference, obviously, since "in" = negation. So, it's care/not-care. If you hate, you care. If you love, you care. If you neither, then you don't care. Therefore, I would describe indifference as the absence of the love/hate duality or the summation or unification of the duality which is a cancellation. You are definitely on the trail of something right with your observations on pride, but the opposite of pride is humility, and humility is the beginning of wisdom while pride precedes a fall. Love doesn't always build because what about he who loves destruction? Does not the devil love the devilish? But I wholeheartedly resonate with your assessment on the profoundness of pride and I feel that the pre-adulterated purpose of christianity, buddhism and hinduism shared the common goal of attaining humility; now they're mostly yet another form of one-upmanship; subtly or not.

Ok, I understand all that. So how do I figure the amount of energy, heat, whatever-it's-called absorbed by the co2 molecule at the right IR frequency? And after I've done that, then how do I figure the amount radiated back to earth in a 90 degree cone? Also, I need help with nomenclature. Light = heat because heat is energy in travel. Is that right? What is the energy inside a vibrating atom called? Kinetic, I know, but does it have a more specific name? Thanks! Yeah, but that's hijacking for convenience and not formal definition. The numerator and denominator are opposites and so in language the convention carries over for true/false, on/off, etc. It is also the numerator in terms of the denominator, as you wrote it, so speciation in terms of evolution instead of speciation in terms of creation. Computers have changed our way of thinking and now "/" often means a subset, so it would be Evolution/Speciation/next subset which is a lot like the reciprocal of the "in terms of" definition, so none of it really deviates far from the mathematical meaning of the symbol. Now that's deep! Good one

I don't understand what you're trying to say there. If the zeta function describes what happens between the plates and the answer is unintuitive, but experiments confirm the unintuitive answer, then how does that prove the answer should be intuitive? It is a contradiction. He said: "classical physics doesn't reckon with the weird effects you see when you look at the world at very small scales" "That means there should be an attractive force between the metallic plates, which also seems ludicrous, since classical physics suggests there should be no force." If he has already determined that CM cannot make predictions, then why is he using it to make predictions? Essentially he has said, "There shouldn't be an attractive force because CM says so even though CM has no capability to say anything." As much as you say that, I beginning to wonder if it's some sort of wishful chant lol I tell nature how to behave all the time. That's the essence of farming... we bring in plants that nature would prefer to be elsewhere and force them to grow with fertilizers and then fight nature's desire to have to bugs eat the crops with insecticides, etc, etc. Human existence is essentially telling nature what to do. It's exceedingly rare to find someone who lives in harmony with nature. I think your thinking is erroneous. If I say there should be a unified theory and you say most people will disagree with my sentiment, then I'm betting you are wrong in that prediction. Because, if you are right, then there would be no motivation to find one. You are essentially saying that it's better to have 2 theories than 1. There should be a lot of things and just because I can't solve the world's problems does not make what should be any less true. So you agree with me then that a particle, like a golf ball, cannot go through two slits at the same time? I'm not sure. Once upon a time I thought it was, but now I don't know. Since it can go through 2 slits at once, I suppose it is not. You said, "Energy is a property. If you want to talk about fundamental reality, we have a philosophy section." I said, "Are you saying physics is independent from reality?" Your reply is "no". So if I want to talk about reality, why must I leave the physics section to do so? Falling up is not logically impossible, but having an 'up' without a 'down' is impossible. Can nature create a one-sided coin? Nature does what it wants inside the bounds of what is possible and laws of nature are merely observed regularities because no law exists in nature except that of what is possible. So it would seem that physics itself has imposed upon nature by declaring regularities to be laws that nature cannot break and if we work under the assumption of not being able to tell nature how to operate, then we've conceded that the laws are not laws and could change at any moment and therefore we have no construct under which to function. Can you imagine the ramifications if c were a little faster tomorrow and a little slower by the weekend?

A sine wave generator is not outputting a single frequency? Why all the effort to distinguish single frequencies and claim they are infinite? I can't see the goal where this is leading and I can't see how the distinction is possible. If a single frequency must last for infinite time, then there will never come a day where infinite time has past and therefore single frequencies can never exist. Oh I see. That's an interesting observation. If there were infinite energy and matter were created from it, then infinite energy would still remain. Why is that not scientifically impossible? I'd consider the loosest of definitions of energy conservation to be plenty sufficient to prevent the idea of infinite energy. You wouldn't? I don't see why that necessitates a particle. Interaction determines point-like behavior because interaction of a wave with an atom determines discrete energy level differences at resonance which absorbs an entire photon. I just learned that a wave is not reflected, but re-emitted. The original wave passes straight through and combines with the re-emitted wave to experience a shift in phase. So because a wine glass will resonate at one frequency, then can we infer sound is a particle? An atom will absorb when it resonates because the charges emit 180 degree waves that cancel the photon while all the energy of the photon will transfer to kicking the electrons up to the next level. That doesn't mean the photon is a particle and it seems the fact that it is absorbed at all is evidence for it not being a particle. Discreteness doesn't mean particle, does it? Have a look at the answer designated by 179 upvotes by David Z https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81190/whats-inside-a-proton?rq=1 A proton is really made of excitations in quantum fields (kind of like localized waves). If quarks are localized waves, then being indivisible is splitting a wave only to have the same thing you began with. It's like trying to cut the temperature in half by cutting the cake in half. And if we pull two quarks apart, a new pair pops into existence from the energy used to pull the quarks apart. FWD to 3:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls The whole video is good actually. Not really, look at the previous quote of what you said Yes, that's the one. So it was a silver atom. Well, again, the quantumness doesn't necessitate particleness; it only necessitates a discrete part of a continuum. I suppose we need to define "testable", but your philosophy appears to be that "testable" is independent from reason as if we can't obviously test the hypothesis of a true lie and determine it does not exist without resorting to empirical evidence. That's like saying "All statements must be backed by empirical evidence; except this one." Science grew out of philosophy like an apple grew from an apple tree. The top answer here saved me some typing https://www.quora.com/Is-philosophy-a-subset-or-superset-of-scientific-practice I think what you said is close to what I said, except that I wouldn't have said "that there IS something beyond" because we can't assume there is something beyond, but it is better to assume there is something beyond than to be sure that there is not. Do you see what I am trying to say? It is better to believe there is a god and to be wrong than to believe there isn't because our paradigm prevents transcendental thinking. I see what you're saying, but the problem isn't thinking outside the box or not knowing where the box is, but in not being able to admit error. "Oh well, it was an interesting idea, but back to the drawing board." That's the crackpot and they're really no different than anyone else because the ego is common to all and, coincidentally, it also has particle and wave-like properties in that it is indivisible and infinite in range How do you know a photon is not emitted gradually? Wouldn't instantaneous emission violate the "faster than light transmission of information" thing? The speed of causality? Unless, of course, by photon you mean the very start of a waveform, but even the beginning had a cause. How can there be discontinuities in the transfer of information? If there were, then the info would be lost. Good conversation, Strange. If guys named Strange are normal, then I'll have to watch out for guys named Norm

Probably why they say English is one of the hardest languages to learn and I'm not such a big fan of it because I find most arguments have semantics for fuel. Thanks for asking! I'm struggling with how to describe the amount of... I don't know what to call it... energy, heat, internal energy... in a co2 molecule due to the absorption of IR radiation and then compare that to the amount reflected in the visible band. I don't know how to do that because E=hf and therefore the amount reflected > the amount absorbed because E is purely a function of frequency. Another problem I have is how to differentiate the amount of IR re-radiation traveling towards earth vs the amount travelling to space. If we assume the re-radiation forms a cone of 90 degrees over the earth (which is the total possible paths a ray could take to strike a sphere), then it "seems" like energy should be divided by 4 (360/90 = 4), but it's not because E=hf. I am confused by the fact that heat is energy in transmission and not energy in storage, so the energy contained in a vibrating molecule is not heat, but the energy emitted is. So is the energy of the vibrating molecule called internal energy? Do I quarter the internal energy to find what I need? Or am I looking for heat? And in the case of the visible light reflection, am I looking for heat? I'm totally lost and I'm not even sure how to ask a question properly. I also need a diffusion index for co2 because I need to know how much light is reflected at each frequency. Oh goodness... I'm such a goofball! I thought you misspelled "phase" as "phrase" and upon being corrected, I then googled "phrase charge separation" like an idiot lol. I was thinking, "What the heck is 'phrase charge separation? Google has nothing about it." Then it occurred to me that you meant the phrase "charge separation." Next time use quotes when dealing with dummies I knew the meaning of "charge separation", but I did not know it was called that. Wiki says - Photoinduced charge separation is the process of an electron in an atom or molecule, being excited to a higher energy level by the absorption of a photon and then leaving the atom or molecule to a nearby electron acceptor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoinduced_charge_separation I have a question about the last statement on that page: If a photon of light hits the atom it will be absorbed if, and only if, energy of that photon is equal to the difference between the ground state and another energy level in that atom. This raises the electron to a higher energy level. Why is it not better to say that the difference between the ground state and another energy level is the point where a photon is absorbed? Why does the photon depend on the energy level and not the energy level depend on the photon? Do you see what I am asking? It seems like it would be the resonance of the atom that determines the point where a photon would be absorbed and that would define the difference in energy levels. Not the other way around, which is the difference in energy levels determines if a photon is absorbed and that defines the resonance because it doesn't make sense that way. It's putting the cart before the horse. Resonance is a function of mass and bond strength and resonance determines if a photon is absorbed and therefore is it resonance that determines the difference in energy levels. Why is that not correct? ______________________________________________________________ Damn merging! I hope Studiot notices that I addressed him. Can someone please give me a reason why anyone would desire to have their replies all merged together? I can't see how that is a handy feature and it's exceedingly frustrating to have what I wrote to Studiot to be merged with what I wrote to John.

Because I am not wrong and have supplied evidence illustrating that I am not. If you need more evidence, then I'd enthusiastically accept the invitation to vent frustration while simultaneously proving just how right I am if I could post here every time I find ambiguity while researching. Here is another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber#Definition That's a weak defense as astronomy depends on physics. You're probably right and that isn't something to be proud of. What's the difference between nature and reality?

I can add "phase" to the "list". The term phase can refer to several different things: It can refer to a specified reference, such as {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \cos(2\pi ft)\,}, in which case we would say the phase of {\displaystyle \scriptstyle x(t)\,} is {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \varphi \,}, and the phase of {\displaystyle \scriptstyle y(t)\,} is {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \varphi \,-\,{\frac {\pi }{2}}\,}. It can refer to {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \varphi \,}, in which case we would say {\displaystyle \scriptstyle x(t)\,} and {\displaystyle \scriptstyle y(t)\,} have the same phase but are relative to their own specific references. In the context of communication waveforms, the time-variant angle {\displaystyle \scriptstyle 2\pi ft\,+\,\varphi }, or its principal value, is referred to as instantaneous phase, often just phase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves) I know what phase means, but I don't know what science says it means because the definition is loose and ambiguous. I just sat down to study some science and the first thing I encounter is "the term you would like defined is ambiguous". I couldn't believe it, so I immediately came here to elucidate the frustration I'm experiencing. And the defense was that it takes years of study to learn physics whereas I'm jumping in the middle. I'm not sure about that... it takes years of study because of stuff like that ^. It's rampant! I'm on the learning-end here and I'm telling ya it's as if the muddling-up were deliberate to hinder learning as much as possible. Why can't "science" state clearly its definitions? Without clear definitions, it's impossible to communicate. If I say the phase is x, then you immediately have to ask what I mean. If I throw "gamma rays" in, then you'll really be uninformed. Do I mean sub-xray-energy from a nucleus or high-energy waves from something else? Previously, I thought gamma rays meant high-energy waves, but now I have to stipulate super-xray-energy gamma rays of nucleic or non-nucleic origin to convey what was so much easier before I bothered to read the real definition (or lack of one). Off soapbox, back to studying...

I will once we exhaust these topics. I have too many lines in the water right now. LOL! I like to see you making jokes while admonishing me; somehow that makes it better. You're doing it again... more distinctions (science vs philosophy). I know you're really logical and want to systemize and categorize, and that is a fantastic way to arrive at insightful revelations, but I'm fighting that tendency in myself because I believe everything is connected; the universe is the atomos (the indivisible whole). I know, I know... there exists a philosophy section for this sort of talk. But if there is no distinction between philosophy and science, then where is the objection? Science is a subset of philosophy because in order to practice it, you have to first develop a philosophy of how you intend to practice it. So when you say "Scientists deal in observed 'facts' and deduce connections between them.", then that is your philosophy about science. I'm just saying these distinction are arbitrary and subjective. I often think of the quote from Einstein: Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism.2C_atheism.2C_and_deism What did he mean by "lack of transcendental outlook?" I think it means he doesn't want people's own fences to confine them and it may be preferable to believe erroneously than to be incapable of thinking outside the box. (Normally I don't quote Einstein, but today must be Einstein day.) How about this quote: "A fool who persists in his folly will eventually become wise." - Blake. It seems that being wrong may not be such a big deal, but being incapable of being right is a big deal. Now that is insightful! Good point! Yup, that's how I see it too. Poor model? I thought it was illuminating In reality, there is no such thing as a discontinuity, but rather a continuous transition to a discrete state. If we turn a lamp from on to off by breaking the connection, then as the switch begins to separate, the current will arc across the gap and already affect the state of the lamp. As the switch is moved further, the resistance will grow until it converges to a discrete state of "disconnected". Still, it takes time for the effects to travel to the bulb and all of it happens as a smooth continuity well-under the speed of causality. So in fact, or in reality, there are more states than just two. For instance, there is the state where the filament in the bulb is 90% illuminated. So there are infinite states just like a ruler has infinite divisions, but it's not infinite states and is instead a continuous "happening". In reality, when the speed of the flicking of the switch = the speed of the fastest bit of the system, there will be no such thing as a change in state and any increase in speed from there will be meaningless. What happens when the switch is opened and closed faster than light can travel? Clearly, that's impossible, but doesn't the problem necessitate that? The amount of time between states is infinitesimally small, which is a violation of the speed of causality. But in the realm of mathematics, there are no such speed limits and there is the problem and where math fails to represent reality. Fire away! I have a background in math, but haven't practised in some time, so I'm rusty, but can catch up. Anyway, I'm not daunted and I look forward to it.

I don't understand what "shorter signal" means. Can you elaborate more on the basis of the uncertainty principle as it relates to this topic? Thanks! Of course, but I see an infinite universe as an impossibility. Obviously, there would be no conservation of energy if energy were infinite. Is that right? I could attack this in infinite ways The joke is to never argue infinity with a mathematician because it never ends lol That reminds me of something someone once said.... What do you mean by "post-like"? "Indivisible" in what sense? Waves are indivisible in the sense that splitting a wave results in the same thing we began with. E=hf so no matter how many times we split the wave, E is the same. Particles will always be divisible because there will always be the question of what composes the particle. How can there be a smallest particle? And now we have the infinite divisibility problem. I'm far from being an expert in this, but all in all, it seems to me that it's better stated that waves exhibit particle-like behavior rather than particles with wave-like behavior. People are already too conditioned to think in terms of tangibles and should be reconditioned from the start to think in terms of waves. That's my opinion; whatever it's worth; not much I'm guessing lol. What is the evidence for photons being particles? If we refute all of it, then will it mean photons are waves? The best evidence I've seen so far is that of spin in the experiment where a magnetic wave was used to veer the photon (or electron; I can't remember) off course and a spiral trajectory was observed indicating the particle was spinning. Is that accurate? I'm not sure how to refute that one. I'll have to think on it.

I'm going to zero-in on this first since it's freshest in my mind after reading that link. Quoting from the link: Are the equations of QM that result in the divergent series correct? If so, then let's proceed: Doesn't that also question the validity of QM? But he stated above that "classical physics doesn't reckon with the weird effects you see when you look at the world at very small scales". He contradicted himself by saying CM doesn't deal with small scales and then said CM made a prediction about small scales (ie that there should be no force). Ah, so QM is redeemed by experimental confirmation and mathematically divergent series then realistically converge by evidence of experimentation. What that is telling me is that math does not always accurately reflect reality. Umm... I thought he was trying to disprove 1+2+3+4+... = -1/12... not prove it. It seems in the construct of mathematics, the sum should be infinite. But in the real world, the sum is -1/12 Yup! So where is the disproof? The closest I saw was the objection to 1-1+1-1+1-1... not being equal to 1/2, which lots of youtube commenters also resonated with. But I'm not sure it matters much because if S1 = 1, then S2 = 1/2 and S = -1/6. If S1 = 0, then S2 = 0 and S = 0. Neither answer is infinite. I've given it some thought and have decided, based on the Thomson Lamp where the state cannot be between on and off in the finite world, that in the infinite-world the only way to correctly express the right state is by averaging the two states. The reason for that is if we ever stop the sequence to find a finite answer, then it is not the result of the infinite sequence. So, in other words, we need the result of a sequence that is never stopped to see what the result is... and the only answer is 1/2 because both 0 and 1 are answers to finite sequences and conditional on discrete states. This shouldn't be surprising to people who believe a particle can exist in a superposition and travel through 2 slits at once in order to interfere with itself. If you don't object to that, then how can you object to a lamp being in 2 states simultaneously due to the expression of an infinite progression on a finite medium? It seems to me that if you reject one, you must reject the other. Anyway, I've yet to see a good reason to dismiss the assertions of the video. Here is a second proof: And here is another perspective: He has a good point around 6:30 by asking "does (-1)^.5 exist?" Obviously it's nonsense, yet we derive useful correlations to reality by employing it mathematically. I know folks hate watching videos others post, but that 2nd one is quite good and he is very objective. Anyway, the site has the capability to host videos and I assume that is for some purpose. There should be. A golf ball is something I could call a particle. A golf ball does not go through two holes at one time to interfere with itself (although buckyballs do, which causes me to rethink the atom itself.) Are you saying physics is independent from reality? I'll be joining the philosophy section when I have time to come up for air in this department. Yes we do! I'm telling nature that it cannot have bright darkness. Nature does what is possible and impossibilities are not possible.

Be nice. The correct answer is "Yeah, lol, I can see what you mean." Not, "Well, you're just stupid." Your not resonating with what I'm talking about makes me wonder just how much you've been studying, because: Gamma Rays Gamma rays typically have frequencies above 10 exahertz (or >1019 Hz), and therefore have energies above 100 keV and wavelengths less than 10 picometers (10−11 m), which is less than the diameter of an atom. However, this is not a strict definition, but rather only a rule-of-thumb description for natural processes. Electromagnetic radiation from radioactive decay of atomic nuclei is referred to as "gamma rays" no matter its energy, so that there is no lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay. This radiation commonly has energy of a few hundred keV, and almost always less than 10 MeV. In astronomy, gamma rays are defined by their energy, and no production process needs to be specified. The energies of gamma rays from astronomical sources range to over 10 TeV, an energy far too large to result from radioactive decay. So are gamma rays defined by their source or by their energy? Loose and ambiguous. On the subject of reflection and refraction, there are two ways to describe the same process: One is the classical wave propagation where an EMW causes an electron to move which induces another EMW which causes a phase shift in the resultant wave. The other is the QM method where photons travel every possible path between atoms and the superposition of all those paths cause the shift in phase. Which is reality? I can't see how anyone can come away from that video thinking any physicist has a good handle on reality. One of those professors on that sixtysymbols channel likes to challenge himself to explain something in 10 min. 10 min??? Do atoms touch? Well, that's another 12 min video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0TNJrTlbBQ Then we have absolute zero which seems very much like it should be an absolute limit, but yet we also have negative temperatures, which are unintuitively hotter than any positive temperature. It takes 13 min to explain that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTeBUpR17Rw Light can't travel faster because the speed of light is the speed of causality, yet somehow the universe is expanding faster than the speed of causality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo The definition of heat is often subjective or is used interchangeably for internal energy and temperature. F=ma only works when velocities are low and doesn't account for the change in mass. For some reason, no one wants to tell the students that until it circulates around the back of the classroom under the topic of "Hey, did ya know F=ma is wrong?" All that off the top of my head. Let me know if I need to google some more; no doubt someone has a list somewhere. You're correct about reality, but science does have an obligation to be clear in its definitions and using intuitive nomenclature would help as well. Most arguments I see on forums are simply bickering about the definition of words and the opponents would actually agree if they had their semantics standardized. So is music. Thanks. I am going to look into that. So that equation is just the reflected bit and not the composite refracted wave? Oh ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations The fraction of the incident power that is reflected from the interface is given by the reflectance or reflectivity, R, and the fraction that is refracted is given by the transmittance or transmissivity, T, (unrelated to the transmission through a medium). So n1 = 1 and n2 = 1.00045 at some unknown frequency, then R = 5 x 10^-8 And T = 1 - R = .99999995. Ah, so it's a percent. Got it. Thanks! How can that be? I know in the IR band that T goes to zero and therefore R goes to 1. n1 = 1 and n2 = x as x -> infinity, then ((n-x)/(n+x))^2 converges to 1. R and T seem variable across the bands. Are there not equations to describe R and T in terms of frequency? Or at least n in terms of frequency? n = c / phase velocity. How does co2 fit into determining the phase velocity at specific frequencies? Then use an led light that doesn't emit IR. The thermometer will still read cooler. That's true. I still don't see a difference in gradual or abrupt if we go from .5 atm to 1 atm. The mechanism is that co2 is a highpass filter which allows high-energy light to enter but does not allow low-energy light to leave (easily). When I first heard that, I immediately thought "Hey, wait a minute!" Now, here I am. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll study your post before I reply. Thanks for helping me.. I really appreciate it.

There is much in that thread that should have tangential threads. I really don't want you to think of me as a pain in the butt for being such a nonconformist (or any other reason), but I don't resonate with these "styles" in how to view the world (classical vs QM). Why can't there just be the Tao... the way? You asked me before to forget the photon, so what's wrong with treating the particles as quantised bits of waves rather than the misleading idea of "particle" nomenclature? I'm not sure I said that right, but you know what I mean. The idea of particles bothers me because the infinite divisibility problem. Fundamental reality has to be energy. Oh you mean "duality" in finite/infinite. So "wave packets" is a singularity composed of two opposites like a "true lie" or "bright night" or +- which sums to nothing. This is becoming very interesting philosophically. Now you're really going to hate me... I don't believe infinity exists in reality. We will definitely need a separate thread for that discussion. Something is wrong...how can models that don't reflect reality be accurate? How can a wave extend to infinity and also be accurately represented as a discrete particle? Which is reality? That reminds me of the Thomson Lamp: http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist The setup is this - let us imagine a lamp with a switch that flicked once, turns the lamp on, and flicked again turns it off. Now suppose we can perform the following task: after one minute we turn the lamp on, then half a minute after that we turn it off, then a quarter of a minute after that we turn it on again, then an eighth of a minute after that we turn it off, and so on... The sum of this infinite series of intervals is two minutes. The question is, given that the lamp can only be on or off, what state is it in after two minutes? We can make S equal to 1, 0, or 1/2. However we look at the situation, it seems that somehow the lamp is both on and off at the same time. But this is a contradiction to our previous statements that the lamp must be either on or off. In mathematics, when we come to a contradiction often the first thing to do is check our prepositions are correct. Are all the things we assumed to be true in the first place really true? In the case of Thomson's Lamp one of them must be wrong. Modern mathematics says that the proposition that says the lamp must be either on or off is wrong. In infinite mathematics lamps must be able to be both on and off at the same time. But you could say instead that infinity doesn't exist - that it isn't possible to perform an infinite series of actions. That even a mathematical lamp can't be on and off at the same time. We could try this experiment in real life and get a similar answer. Eventually we would only be able to switch the lamp at the smallest observable quanta of time - we wouldn't be able to switch it any faster. And so the lamp would have a definite ending state after two minutes - and even one we could calculate beforehand if we knew the numbers involved. Likewise, the waves should have an end without needing to become particles. Surely the gravity of a molecule at the other end of the universe can't be stretching all the way to this side. At some point it would become fundamentally impossible to detect and meaningless to ask if it exists. Like trying to discern the curvature of a circle with radius of graham's number of light years; circles of that magnitude are indistinguishable from straight lines. The universe is a strange place. Consider the sum of all natural numbers being = -1/12

Yay! What is the interpretation of the new model? From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties With the development of quantum mechanics and experimental findings (such as the two slits diffraction of electrons), it was found that the orbiting electrons around a nucleus could not be fully described as particles, but needed to be explained by the wave-particle duality. In this sense, the electrons have the following properties: Wave-like properties: - The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the manner of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. Thus the lowest possible energy an electron can take is similar to the fundamental frequency of a wave on a string. Higher energy states are similar to harmonics of that fundamental frequency. - The electrons are never in a single point location, although the probability of interacting with the electron at a single point can be found from the wave function of the electron. Particle-like properties: - There is always an integer number of electrons orbiting the nucleus. - Electrons jump between orbitals in a particle-like fashion. For example, if a single photon strikes the electrons, only a single electron changes states in response to the photon. - The electrons retain particle-like properties such as: each wave state has the same electrical charge as the electron particle. Each wave state has a single discrete spin (spin up or spin down). This can depend upon its superposition. I don't believe an integer number of electrons necessarily implies particles just like a wine glass resonance doesn't imply sound is a particle. Electrons jumping between orbitals doesn't imply particles either and for the same reason. Piano keys may be discrete, but that doesn't mean sound is. Spin might imply a particle, but I don't know much about spin. I suppose force goes to acceleration as F=ma and if there is no acceleration, then there is no force or else the mass is infinite and cannot be accelerated. So it seems safe to say that if an EMW causes a force, then there will be an acceleration. Accelerating charges do not cause EMWs? What do I let go of? Idk what others are doing; I'm just interested in the change. They say co2 makes earth hotter. Hotter than what? Hotter than before the co2 was there. CO2 is 1.00045 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index So that means v= 299,792,458/1.00045 But that doesn't tell me the reflection because that number is a composite of the original wave and the re-emitted wave. How do I figure only the re-emitted wave? That is the reflected wave I need to know. My next problem is at what frequency is that refraction number? I need a dispersion index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics) This page says spinach chloroplasts have a refractive index of 1.02 - 1.06, which seems quite low compared to glass (1.50) which is more clear than plant leaves. https://watermark.silverchair.com/api/watermark?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAekwggHlBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggHWMIIB0gIBADCCAcsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM9k0k4vpbFmtAwcB5AgEQgIIBnCGSV_FzHr0ZM7YrjqnI7sxln05MN9JX0B-CnFOHOvtUuK-GG_mkxZCRRbJhKeX6I-5ckJ3ojxbz9WPPqBYutP2aEV4Mu3L_4cCoAfZoU-Ywncf3RMLV1jWbm2yKtPXD7ZqO5148Xy3dOKNQQOT3Fv682OmGWnB_kwqpj3cN2iaMzjFktP3tIseZre7Vg0VnksDnIEn4oi9hxzEDq5qXYHTdVPoDNA8DnpbL4x3QbaUGZB8_TuLac61hr4tRHsafDqlbwSxxbTz565_3-SU8N2GIElLrJqJSm4sL38b75m3d1nAkrkErTHX6Ia3joM4ZnytHoYAggpyuLP2q8MAqAWzdhzNtElhmw6dy_gJdbEFhi5alDYLVBWx7uuZ0aMiaZu9k1PesthCUYGvfNHNA0u64vY4SZAE6ghK5oJJh4VIpVRf8es5plsTjcrMqQ1RtkY9S8zZAdvh68jf_fwvgJ_B-jpBULQFagsqK0GnUXRE8WWVQcpjXAhKOVymNO9FHK6Skcdr3zGDCExdUCGy4bts2FLJs5xUTZDLKryk But still, without a dispersion index, I'm not sure what I am comparing. 2 x 10^-8 what units? Idk what "of the light" means and this is another area where I need insight. Temperature is degree of hotness while heat is quantity of hotness, but the definition of heat is rigorously defended by those who assert heat is a measure of transferred energy. Heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body of matter to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference, or by any means other than through work or the transfer of matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat So WTH? How can something contain heat when heat is not anything that can be contained? Major confusion here. What is the measure of energy contained inside a bucket of hot water? And if we put a pane of glass between a light bulb and a thermometer, the meter will read lower, yet the energy (E=hf) of any specific f is the same regardless if it's reflected or transmitted. So what is it that makes the meter read cooler? Are you quite sure physics is not an art? lol Because so many loose definitions and rampant ambiguity makes for an unintuitive science. Are you sure reflection decreases with increasing density? That doesn't seem right. If we go from .5 atm to 1 atm, why does it matter how gradual it is? I didn't see time in the equation. It seems like you're saying co2 is meaningless, and if you are, then I agree. I just want to know the science involved. If I can't understand it, then I have to believe someone on faith.

Does air have an LD50? lol I wonder what the time interval is for the water. If water is delivered quickly enough, a gram should be plenty for LD100 But seriously, what does LD50 on water actually mean? Is it dilution of salts in the body or the sheer volume of liquid that kills? Or something else? Water isn't deadly, but it's like an aphorism with a deeper meaning. But yeah, moderation in all things, including moderation. _____________________________________________________________________ Regarding meat, I think folks must rely on modern technologies to be vegan, such as: vitamins, farming for the quantities of food necessary to compensate for lack of meat, vast array of kitchen equipment, and knowledge of nutrition in general to know what one needs to eat in order to compensate for what would otherwise be a balanced diet; therefore, veganism isn't what we would describe as "natural" by the definition standards of most people. Although, with sufficient skill, determination, and resources, one could be a healthy vegan. Everyone knows about B12, but what about vitamin A? Have they standardized the standard yet or are they still upping the number of carrots one has to eat per day in order to supply the necessary retinol? As some carotenoids can be converted into vitamin A, attempts have been made to determine how much of them in the diet is equivalent to a particular amount of retinol, so that comparisons can be made of the benefit of different foods. The situation can be confusing because the accepted equivalences have changed. For many years, a system of equivalencies in which an international unit (IU) was equal to 0.3 μg of retinol, 0.6 μg of β-carotene, or 1.2 μg of other provitamin-A carotenoids was used.[50] Later, a unit called retinol equivalent (RE) was introduced. Prior to 2001, one RE corresponded to 1 μg retinol, 2 μg β-carotene dissolved in oil (it is only partly dissolved in most supplement pills, due to very poor solubility in any medium), 6 μg β-carotene in normal food (because it is not absorbed as well as when in oils), and 12 μg of either α-carotene, γ-carotene, or β-cryptoxanthin in food. Newer research has shown that the absorption of provitamin-A carotenoids is only half as much as previously thought. As a result, in 2001 the US Institute of Medicine recommended a new unit, the retinol activity equivalent (RAE). Each μg RAE corresponds to 1 μg retinol, 2 μg of β-carotene in oil, 12 μg of "dietary" beta-carotene, or 24 μg of the three other dietary provitamin-A carotenoids.[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A#Equivalencies_of_retinoids_and_carotenoids_.28IU.29 So how many carrots is that? More than I want to eat per day. If the RDA is 900 micrograms retinol, then x12 = 10,800 micrograms beta carotene. If the average carrot has 3500 micrograms beta carotene, then that's 3 carrots per day. And that's assuming they know what they're talking about. "Be careful reading health books; you may die of a misprint" Mark Twain Wiki goes on to say: Because the conversion of retinol from provitamin carotenoids by the human body is actively regulated by the amount of retinol available to the body, the conversions apply strictly only for vitamin A-deficient humans. The absorption of provitamins depends greatly on the amount of lipids ingested with the provitamin; lipids increase the uptake of the provitamin.[52] The conclusion that can be drawn from the newer research is that fruits and vegetables are not as useful for obtaining vitamin A as was thought; in other words, the IUs that these foods were reported to contain were worth much less than the same number of IUs of fat-dissolved oils and (to some extent) supplements. This is important for vegetarians, as night blindness is prevalent in countries where little meat or vitamin A-fortified foods are available. Supplements are better than fruits a vegetables?!? Holy cow! Next is vitamin D from sunshine, but if one doesn't get enough, maybe because of higher latitudes or avoidance of the sun altogether, then what dietary source could a vegan possibly have? (Other than mushrooms artificially exposed to UV light, since mushrooms generally prefer the shade). Vitamin D is found mostly in fatty fish, but also in the fat of animals exposed to the sun. Lard used to be a source of vitamin D. https://www.vitamindwiki.com/"Free+range"+lard+has+500+IU+vitamin+D+per+teaspoon But who eats lard anymore? Next is K2; another meat vitamin. A vegan could find K2 in fermented foods, but who does their own fermenting and does it properly? There is no K2 source in the grocery store other than meat, cheese, eggs. Of course, humans convert K1 to K2, but the medical community doesn't seem to guess at the conversion factor like with carotene to retinol. From: https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016/12/09/the-ultimate-vitamin-k2-resource/ First, we don’t actually know that much about how the conversion takes place, but it seems to be inefficient and highly variable according to genetics and health status, making it unreliable. Second, cholesterol-lowering statin drugs and certain osteoporosis drugs inhibit the conversion, making it even less reliable in people who are taking these drugs. Third, research shows vitamin K2 is better than vitamin K1 at supporting many different aspects of our health. If we easily converted as much K1 to K2 as we needed, we wouldn’t observe these superior benefits of K2. Being a vegan seems a lot of work, a lot of attention to detail, a lot of reliance on technology, and perhaps a lot of reliance of genetic proclivity to make necessary conversions. Animals do the conversion work for us, just like they used to pull plows. Herbivores do a particularly good job of converting vegetation into necessary nutrients and I believe humans evolved to be reliant on animals after millennia of eating them. And the dense source of nutrition that hunting provided led to time being available for activities other than eating which led to language, science and art. Vegans spend too much time in the kitchen and like cows spend all day eating; there isn't enough time left to develop cognitively. People who eat steak also tend to make similar decisions, that's why I hate these correlation studies. For instance, steak eaters may also choose to eat more processed foods. Perhaps they are less inclined to exercise. Those types of studies are very misleading. Seventh Day Adventists are vegan and live longer than the general population. Well, almost any group that pays particular attention to being healthy is going to live longer than the general population. The study says nothing except people who try to be healthy, on average, live longer than people who do not necessarily try. 7th day adventists also do not smoke or drink, they're not as stressed in life, and they garden, work outside, and watch what they eat. Studies show coffee drinkers live longer. Maybe it's because they took the time to make coffee rather than rush to start the day? Maybe it's not the coffee at all. Or maybe it is; who knows.

Apologies for the delay, but I have accomplished some studying. How can it be both? The only way is if light is a wave that is thought of as a particle in some situations. I read that protons often pass through each other in particle accelerators. Particles cannot do that because particles cannot occupy the same space. @user104: (1) you cannot. (2) yes indeed, the LHC collides protons with protons and most times the protons just go through each other without scattering. – John Rennie Feb 22 '16 at 12:42 @ConstantineBlack: particles aren't points. They are excitations in a quantum field and don't have a position or a size in the sense that macroscopic objects do. They are pointlike in the sense that any experiment to measure a minimum size will fail. Any two particles, electrons, quarks and photons, can have overlapping probability distributions, and there is a finite probability they can both be detected in any volume element no matter how small that volume element is. However it is meaningless to ask if any two particles of any kind can be at the same point in space. – John Rennie Feb 22 '16 at 17:12 @ConstantineBlack: the probability of finding a particle in volume dVdV is P=ψ∗ψdVP=ψ∗ψdV and this goes to zero as dVdV goes to zero. So the probability of finding any particle in a point of zero volume is zero. – John Rennie Feb 22 '16 at 17:26 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/238976/why-doesnt-an-electron-ever-hit-and-stick-on-a-proton?noredirect=1&lq=1 Aren't electrons considered to be standing waves in their orbitals? Above resonance is what I thought, but you're right. What I failed to see is that EM waves only interact with charges, not matter itself. Charged particles do not have that much mass, so they are accelerated by the EMR. But hypothetically, if a charge could be massive enough or attached strongly to enough mass, what would happen to the EM wave as it passed by that charge? If a force is applied in effort to move a charge, but the charge cannot move, then where does the force go? That is a little analogous to a speaker and signal where the speaker cannot keep up with the signal due to its mass. In that case, the energy goes to heat in burning the voicecoil, but what happens when an EM wave attempts to accelerate a charge in the opposite direction of its momentum? Is heat generated? If so, how? The heat would have to be radiated in IR resonances, so how would those resonances develop? Let's save that for other discussions Agree. What I mean is if something is introduced into the atmosphere that reflects light away, then the effect of that introduction is cooling relative to the non-introduction of the element. I'll state more about this after I reply to Studiot. Good point! I know waves should propagate in all directions, but I know from experience that high-frequency sound does not. I don't know why that is. That makes sense. Not just bond length and strength, but mass as well. Right? What I failed to see before was that EMWs only interact with charges, not matter itself. So the charges will be the "handles" that the EMW "grabs" to then shake the molecule and how the molecule behaves is determined by the bonds and the mass of the atoms. I'm a little confused how the co2 molecule would interact with the microwave band because: Often molecules contain dipolar groups, but have no overall dipole moment. This occurs if there is symmetry within the molecule that causes the dipoles to cancel each other out. This occurs in molecules such as tetrachloromethane and carbon dioxide. The dipole-dipole interaction between two individual atoms is usually zero, since atoms rarely carry a permanent dipole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force The way I understand microwave heating with water is that the MW rotates the water molecule which then interacts kinetically with other molecules that cause resonances in the water molecule in the IR band. Water is a dipole, but co2 is shaped more like - + - so I'm curious if MW could rotate the molecule in the same way. I can't forget resonances. For instance when an EMW causes co2 to resonate, it absorbs energy which is expressed by the exaggerated movement and an electron being kicked up to the next energy level. Resonance makes too much sense to me. Yes, any bits of metal lying around within radio wave transmission will have currents induced in them. Resonance is not required, I agree. Hmm.. well the induced currents radiate EMWs as well, right? I don't understand "phase charge separation". This is a good opportunity to tell you what I have learned since we last spoke. In the case of an EM wave and glass, the wave excites the charges causing an acceleration which cause a re-emission of an EM wave at a later point in time which causes a phase shift from the original wave. The summation of the two waves causes refraction through the glass and the reflection is simply the re-radiated wave traveling in the opposite direction that isn't completely cancelled by the incident wave. In the case of opaque objects, the EM wave causes resonances which absorb the wave and hinder further propagation. The re-emission of EM waves from the excited charged particles are shifted 180 degrees out of phase and cancel the incoming wave completely. If the object is not a black body and it has a color, then the color is from light that was not cancelled by the phase shift and is re-radiated at the frequency of the color (that is why grass is green). I'm not sure diffraction is a property of re-emission. Maybe you could tell me more about that. Here's where I really need some help: Any molecule that does not absorb will reflect and refract due to the acceleration of charges produced by the force from the electric fields interacting. Since we know for sure that co2 does not absorb in the visible light band, then we know for sure that it reflects (re-emits) in that band. What we don't know is the amount of the reflection. So the problem has now been reduced to determining the amount of reflected 10^14 light in comparison to the amount of 10^13 light that is absorbed and re-radiated. 10^14 light has 10x more energy than 10^13 so the breakeven point would be at 1/10 reflection; therefore, if 1/10 of visible light is reflected, then it's a wash. But if we consider that the cone of IR re-emission towards earth is roughly 90 degrees, then only 1/4 of the IR re-radiation from co2 will strike earth (360/90=4). So, does that mean 1/40 of visible light needs to be reflected for it to be even? What is confusing me is energy being solely a function of frequency and dividing light in half does not halve the energy just like cutting a cake in half does not reduce its temperature, but it must have an effect on something. Someone will have to show me what that means. That's the last piece to the puzzle. I'm trying my best to understand this. Thanks for your help! ________________________________________________________ Ah crap... I forgot to wait an hour for the "reply merging" behavior to expire. I can't imagine why someone would like that. If I had wanted it to all be one post, I would have constructed it so.

Yes, I think there are 3 possibilities. Why is that not the case? Even if a wave is wide enough to flow around an object, the part that contacts the object still must flow through or bounce off of the face of the object. See 7:08 here: I can't answer yes or no, I have to explain: Radio waves are produced by current that flows up and down an aerial at a specific frequency. The radio waves propagate through space inducing current flows on anything that will resonate with the wave. When the wave meets a receiving antenna, the wave induces current in the antenna = to the frequency of the wave. So to answer your question, I don't think the wave is transmitted down the copper bar, but the wave is transmitted through the copper bar in the direction of the wave travel. The current that is induced is not the same as the wave because it is current and not a EM wave. We could say a "signal" is = to both the wave and the current, but I think the wave and the current are separate things. Also, the induced current should steal energy from the wave. Radio waves sufficiently low can propagate through 100s of feet of earth, therefore they must be using the earth as a medium for propagation (ie not flowing around the earth). If they can do that, then a copper bar is no obstacle. As we climb higher and higher in frequency up the EM scale, the less able the waves will be to pass through the copper bar until we reach a point where the waves reflect. As we go further, we should reach frequencies that can penetrate the copper, but I don't think visible light is high enough. Do you mean I should forget photons as particles? I can do that. I don't even think of electrons as particles, but super-directional waves where the wave-front has a high density of energy. I agree. The frequency of the wave is determined by the source and therefore the directionality is determined by the source. At 12:00 here, they say it can take 150,000 years for light to find its way out of the sun. I believe that if the light were radio waves, that would not be true. It's the directionality of the wave that prevents it from finding its way out sooner. Directionality is dependent upon frequency and the higher the frequency, the more like a particle a wave will act. What do you think? That's fine. If light generates its own medium as it goes, that is fine. I don't understand. I don't see the light from the sun as one big wave a million times bigger than earth, but a collection of small waves emitted from tiny particles inside the sun and those waves don't spread just like a laser beam wouldn't. I think of the sun analogous to trillions and trillions of tweeters emitting high-frequency sound that is directional and aimed at earth... not one giant bass woofer emitting sound in all directions. I suspect that you're trying to get me to accept that high-frequency light has the same properties as low-frequency radio waves and I can't do that with my current understanding. I need a reason to believe that gamma rays, for instance, would be omnidirectional. Astrophysicists say that if a quasar is not aimed directly at earth, then we have nothing to fear because the gamma rays do not spread very much, even over astronomical distances. So I have trouble equating gamma rays with radio waves and therefore when a highly-directional (particle-ish-like) wave meets a co2 molecule, I don't see it simply flowing around it like a radio wave would to an antenna. But even if it did, I think it would still reflect part of the wave back. The difference could be a moot point.... whether a co2 molecule reflects an entire small wave back or if it reflects part of a large wave back, the result is probably the same. Therefore the co2 is taking a co2-size bite out of the visible light that would otherwise be reaching earth while only re-emitting a small part of IR back to earth. That action should be cooling. I hope this post doesn't make you mad. I'm trying hard not to offend you, but I can't say I understand when I don't.