swansont Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Meaning quote to you, not quoting you sorry. I don't know what that means.
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Meaning quote to you, not quoting you sorry. Maybe you need to say what you were quoting, where it was from.
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Maybe you need to say what you were quoting, where it was from. Oh yes I see what you mean, put a credit to the quote, that particular quote was from an university today page, I would struggle to find it again sorry It is not remote sensing; it is local sensing. Your eyes are in your head and directly connected to your brain. You don't get much more local than that. Yes local to your brain but is the emr signal not defined has remote when objects transmit the signal and eyes are then the receiver of emr? Edited October 13, 2014 by Relative
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Yes local to your brain but is the emr signal not defined has remote when objects transmit the signal and eyes are then the receiver of emr? Remote sensing normally refers to the use of instruments to observe things at a distance. (E.g. surveying from an aeroplane.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing Although that might be done using light or radar, It is not (as far as I know) generally applied to just looking at something.
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 ings at distance and pick up the reflected EMR Remote sensing normally refers to the use of instruments to observe things at a distance. (E.g. surveying from an aeroplane.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing Although that might be done using light or radar, It is not (as far as I know) generally applied to just looking at something. Our eyes do not observe things at distance and pick up on the reflected emr of matter? that sounds like remote to me?
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Our eyes do not observe things at distance and pick up on the reflected emr of matter? that sounds like remote to me? Yes, but that is not what the term "remote sensing" normally means. However, if you want to say that we see things that are remote, then that is OK.
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 Yes, but that is not what the term "remote sensing" normally means. However, if you want to say that we see things that are remote, then that is OK. Yes that is what I was saying, Oxygen, hydrogen etc do not emit emr, that is why we can not remotely see it?
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Yes that is what I was saying, Oxygen, hydrogen etc do not emit emr, that is why we can not remotely see it? Yes, hydrogen and oxygen are transparent to visible light. (Liquid oxygen is actually blue.) They can be seen in other frequencies using appropriate instruments. Edited October 13, 2014 by Strange
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 Yes, hydrogen and oxygen are transparent to visible light. (Liquid oxygen is actually blue.) They can be seen in other frequencies using appropriate instruments. Thank you for the answers, added not apart of this thread just to mention - when I referred to it is always dark, this is what I meant. So a medium such as atmosphere, is a conduit for emr?
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 So a medium such as atmosphere, is a conduit for emr? It is not clear what you mean. Yes, light passes through the atmosphere. But the atmosphere is not need for the transmission of light so it isn't a "conduit".
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 It is not clear what you mean. Yes, light passes through the atmosphere. But the atmosphere is not need for the transmission of light so it isn't a "conduit". A conduit does not emit, a conduit can collect currents, the atmosphere can collect currents can it not?
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 A conduit does not emit, a conduit can collect currents, the atmosphere can collect currents can it not? Still not clear what you mean by "collect currents". We are talking about electromagnetic radiation, so I don't know what currents you are referring to.
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Still not clear what you mean by "collect currents". We are talking about electromagnetic radiation, so I don't know what currents you are referring to. The sun heats the atmosphere, the emr is the provider, the atmosphere becomes statically charged by the emr does it not? Edited October 13, 2014 by Relative
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 The sun heats the atmosphere, the emr is the provider, the atmosphere becomes statically charged by the emr does it not? Yes, the atmosphere is heated because it absorbs some radiation from the Sun. It does not cause the atmosphere to become statically charged. (Where did you get that idea from?)
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Yes, the atmosphere is heated because it absorbs some radiation from the Sun. It does not cause the atmosphere to become statically charged. (Where did you get that idea from?) I got the idea from science and what I have learnt. Something that has heat, has energy, something that has energy, has electrostatic of some description, I understand it is radiant energy maintained in the atmosphere, I know a Photon has no apparent charge, but I also know we have bolts of lightning, plasma, I also know the fuzz on a television is static, I also know that matter such has metal, gains static by interaction with emr, to me photons have a charge, but unless coming into force contact with matter, they are neutral. In another words EMR from the Sun, unless acted upon by an opposing force has no effect and would be relative cold. Edited October 13, 2014 by Relative
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Something that has heat, has energy, something that has energy, has electrostatic of some description There is no connection between something being heated and electrical charge. Clearly you have misunderstood something, somewhere. I understand it is radiant energy maintained in the atmosphere Electromagnetic radiation is not "maintained" in the atmosphere; it just passes through it. Unless it is absorbed, in which case it is no longer electromagnetic radiation. I know a Photon has no apparent charge, but I also know we have bolts of lightning, plasma, That is like saying, "I know horses don't have wheels but cars run on diesel". There is no connection between electromagnetic radiation (from the Sun) and lightning. The lightning creates a plasma and creates light. I also know the fuzz on a television is static It is called static (I have no idea why). It has nothing to do with static electricity. I also know that matter such has metal, gains static by interaction with emr Does it? Where did you get that idea from? to me photons have a charge Except they don't. If they did, then light would be diverted by an electric field. (It isn't.) , but unless coming into force contact with matter, they are neutral. They can't not have charge and then suddenly gain charge. Charge is a conserved property. In another words EMR from the Sun, unless acted upon by an opposing force has no effect and would be relative cold. EMR is not cold or hot. It has energy which can be absorbed by a material. That material will then get warmer.
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) There is no connection between something being heated and electrical charge. Clearly you have misunderstood something, somewhere. Electromagnetic radiation is not "maintained" in the atmosphere; it just passes through it. Unless it is absorbed, in which case it is no longer electromagnetic radiation. That is like saying, "I know horses don't have wheels but cars run on diesel". There is no connection between electromagnetic radiation (from the Sun) and lightning. The lightning creates a plasma and creates light. It is called static (I have no idea why). It has nothing to do with static electricity. Does it? Where did you get that idea from? Except they don't. If they did, then light would be diverted by an electric field. (It isn't.) They can't not have charge and then suddenly gain charge. Charge is a conserved property. EMR is not cold or hot. It has energy which can be absorbed by a material. That material will then get warmer. I also know that matter such has metal, gains static by interaction with emr ''Does it? Where did you get that idea from?'' My body emits emr, when i interact with something , sometimes I get a static shock, without interaction there is no static shock, I become a earth and take away charge? In another words EMR from the Sun, unless acted upon by an opposing force has no effect and would be relative cold. ''EMR is not cold or hot. It has energy which can be absorbed by a material. That material will then get warmer.'' I was sure the heat is generated by force contact of emr , and matter, opposing the force , fn=E, causing friction of electrons, which generates the heat? Edited October 13, 2014 by Relative
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 My body emits emr, when i interact with something , sometimes I get a static shock, without interaction there is no static shock, I become a earth and take away charge? That is a complete non-sequitur. What you have said is equivalent to: "My hair is brown, sometimes I get a static shock. Therefore static electricity is caused by the colour brown." Yes, your body emits EMR. But that has nothing to do with static electricity. The static is caused by friction (between your shoes and the carpet, I assume) and is discharged when you touch something. If the air is humid enough, then the static will be discharged before you have a chance to shock yourself. When the air is very dry (Japanese winters) then you can get quite a painful shock after just walking across the room. In fact, the presence of ultraviolet light will cause the static to discharge as well (I'm not sure what the mechanism is for that). I was sure the heat is generated by force contact of emr , and matter, opposing the force , fn=0, causing friction of electrons, which generates the heat? Heat is caused by the energy of the light being converted to kinetic energy of the atoms. But the point is that EMR is not itself hot or cold. But it is able to heat something.
Phi for All Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I got the idea from science and what I have learnt. Did you take physics in school? How long ago was that?
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 Did you take physics in school? How long ago was that? I can not remember doing Physics in school, most of what I know is self taught by the internet and forums. That is a complete non-sequitur. What you have said is equivalent to: "My hair is brown, sometimes I get a static shock. Therefore static electricity is caused by the colour brown." Yes, your body emits EMR. But that has nothing to do with static electricity. The static is caused by friction (between your shoes and the carpet, I assume) and is discharged when you touch something. If the air is humid enough, then the static will be discharged before you have a chance to shock yourself. When the air is very dry (Japanese winters) then you can get quite a painful shock after just walking across the room. In fact, the presence of ultraviolet light will cause the static to discharge as well (I'm not sure what the mechanism is for that). Heat is caused by the energy of the light being converted to kinetic energy of the atoms. But the point is that EMR is not itself hot or cold. But it is able to heat something. ''If the air is humid enough, then the static will be discharged before you have a chance to shock yourself'' Based on the principle that nothing is ever lost, you say discharged into the atmosphere, by humidity, I presume the density of h2o absorbs the energy?, so where exactly does the energy go if nothing is lost? You say emr itself is not hot or cold, but has the ability to heat something, an energy conversion, emr excites atoms? this excitement between atoms creates a friction that creates the heat of a static object with no other force of friction applied by force contact on the surface? And i do not see how it can be not hot or cold, I presume it is cold unless interacting with matter?
elfmotat Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 I can not remember doing Physics in school, most of what I know is self taught by the internet and forums. I recommend you watch the videos here: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics . Start with 1-D motion and work your way down. You need to understand the fundamentals of physics, and you're going to have to set some time aside to learn them.
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 I recommend you watch the videos here: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics . Start with 1-D motion and work your way down. You need to understand the fundamentals of physics, and you're going to have to set some time aside to learn them. Thank you I have viewed some Khan academy in the past, thank you for the link provided , I will view some more Khan academy.
Strange Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Based on the principle that nothing is ever lost, you say discharged into the atmosphere, by humidity, I presume the density of h2o absorbs the energy?, so where exactly does the energy go if nothing is lost? <sigh> 1. There is no principle that "nothing is ever lost". (Take my socks for example. Well, someone seems to.) 2. It has nothing to do with density. 3. Humidity increases the conductivity of air. This allows the electric charge to dissipate. Electric charge is one of those things that "is never lost" (more accurately, it is conserved). So, when you became positively or negatively charged, something else (the carpet?) became negatively or positively charged. In other words, some electrons were moved from you to the carpet (or vice versa). 4. We are talking about CHARGE not energy. You say emr itself is not hot or cold, but has the ability to heat something, an energy conversion, emr excites atoms? this excitement between atoms creates a friction that creates the heat of a static object with no other force of friction applied by force contact on the surface? It has nothing to do with friction. Friction is one way of warming things. So is a hot water bottle, but it would be a mistake to think of photons carrying little hot water bottles around. Photons have energy. This energy is absorbed and becomes increased kinetic energy of the atoms. Kinetic energy of atoms is what we call "temperature". And i do not see how it can be not hot or cold Temperature is a property of matter. Light is not matter. Therefore it is not hot or cold.
Relative Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 <sigh> 1. There is no principle that "nothing is ever lost". (Take my socks for example. Well, someone seems to.) 2. It has nothing to do with density. 3. Humidity increases the conductivity of air. This allows the electric charge to dissipate. Electric charge is one of those things that "is never lost" (more accurately, it is conserved). So, when you became positively or negatively charged, something else (the carpet?) became negatively or positively charged. In other words, some electrons were moved from you to the carpet (or vice versa). 4. We are talking about CHARGE not energy. It has nothing to do with friction. Friction is one way of warming things. So is a hot water bottle, but it would be a mistake to think of photons carrying little hot water bottles around. Photons have energy. This energy is absorbed and becomes increased kinetic energy of the atoms. Kinetic energy of atoms is what we call "temperature". Temperature is a property of matter. Light is not matter. Therefore it is not hot or cold. I am a little confused, you say that it has nothing to do with density, are you saying that more humid is not an increase in the viscosity of the atmosphere , and there is not more water vapour apparent? And emr increases the work an atom does, if a solid object has increased interior atomic reactions to emr, then surely by expansion they impose a friction on the molecules and their bindings?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now