Klaynos

No, I don't agree. It's telling meaningless stories.

That's not what I said. Correct This seems poorly formed but true to a certain extent. What force. Nothing has been said of force yet. Meaningless. Transparent isn't the word. Photons do not strongly interact with other photons. Dark s we've discussed is broadly defined as an absence of something. Can you mathematically define darkness in this context so that out could be measured?

What o said is not terribly interesting. There is some evidence that human eyes can act as single photon detectors.

Light isn't an action as considered by Newtonian mechanics. Your other statements are pretty much meaningless. We know how human eyes work and we understand electromagnetic radiation. Being able to see at night is because there are some visible spectrum photons, it is not complete darkness. The eye is nonlinear so you cannot draw direct brightness comparisons using your eyes.

This has no physical importance.

You are not self consistent. You state that dark is the absence of light and then say when you have light you still have dark. Sorry but that just doesn't make sense and has no use to physics. It is best to ignore human observations and rely on instruments, they're easier to understand.

Dark is not a scientific term. Bit it can have several meanings which could be mapped to scientific terms. Dark, the absence, or significant lack of visible light according to the human eye. This has a mapping to energy flux of light in the visible spectrum. The mapping is not trivial as the human eye is a nonlinear observation tool. Dark the lack of brightness of an object compared to another as observed by a human. This can be mapped to the reflectivity of an object, and it's surroundings. This again is not trivial as the eye is nonlinear and the processing is complicated. You seem to be trying to find underlying meaning to poor descriptors of the universe, that's not the route to fruitful discovery.

The atmosphere is really really big and you couldn't just do the clouds.

All clouds are white. They're water. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not change their colour. It does change the frequency dependent permittivity of the atmosphere though. Which results in the above discussed warming.

Me. The sky is blue. It. I bet you're busy talking to some **** Me. OK. What colour is the sky? It. lol, skank Me. What is the sky? It. but yea, why won't you answer me? This is not intelligence. Popcorn your interaction with it is little more than saying yeah backwards and fourth. I've never had a conversation like that.

Me. The sky is blue An error message about the computer being connected but the webserver not responding.

It just repeated my questions back to me and when I complained it stated using phrases which didn't make sense.

Still no definition.

W = Fs Where W is work, F is force and s is displacement. Or W = change in kinetic energy Or W = negative change in potential energy Or W = integral of F.DS I cannot see where you have defined work in any of your previous posts, could you perhaps quote the section where you believed you have?

None of which answers my question. There's no definition of work in here, you use the word workings once but not work.

It's not about my definition, but yours. If you're going to argue with people using one definition of a word when you are using a completely different one you will never agree, hence all the points about saying that planets do no work.

Can you please define, carefully what you understand to mean by work in this context.

If your idea about photons was true then all of photonics, plasmonics, and metamaterials would not work. They do work as expected so our understanding of light works.

I quite agree. The last post didn't help either. Some explanation is required, not just restating the same meaningless comments.

I don't think I can add much to waist What Bignose has written. One small point of that having unknowns in the final equation (colour, reflectivity, mass, etc...) Would not be bad as long as it could be then compared to an experiment where all those unknowns could be measured.

I'd recommend reading the speculations forum rules and the writing a brief, concise description of one prediction that you're idea makes and how that prediction is derived. You are likely going to be asked about maths as that is the method for making accurate predictions. My chosen scenario for ideas that claim to be theories of everything us to show how the altitude of a geostationary orbit is found using the idea presented.

Rhw range is an interesting point that I've wondered about I assumed that it was not one of the current wifi standards and justbad reporting, but I've not had the time to read further into it.

To me the replies appear nonsensical. Ophiolite raises a good point though.

I've not looked at the link but our looks on topic to me. The idea is you user the drones as high up powerful WiFi hotspots for people on the ground.

I've used hffs, comsol and meep for em modeling, they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Of course depending what you're doing analytical solutions may also be possible.