Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use. So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.
I agree , and I never questioned the part that you wrote in agreement to what I wrote.
I also find it hard to follow a discussion with so many out of context comments by passersby.
it seems that when it looks as if there might be a discussion available by a couple of people there are usually a couple of out of context posters there to diminish the discussion, whether on purpose or not , it may just seem that way.
its like trying to read a book with more advertisements than tv has commercials.
by the time you have read all the distractions your left wondering what the discussion was about in the first place.
I do understand that you also are concerned that the energy in the photon absorption and emission process is not accounted for.
I have been able to follow that through all the distractions.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
I do understand that you also are concerned that the energy in the photon absorption and emission process is not accounted for.
Seizing the opportunity to return to the more serious content of this thread, I have to say that I think the energy "account" does balance. I just think it is not adequately explained in popular science books, and probably in other places.
Seizing the opportunity to return to the more serious content of this thread, I have to say that I think the energy "account" does balance. I just think it is not adequately explained in popular science books, and probably in other places.
yes, it balances out perfectly doesn't it , to zero energy loss.
and it even goes beyond that because it proves that overunity is possible and that a system can create energy.
it proves that the conservation of energy is wrong.
at least the conservation of mass still stands.
and it did all that without taking it into the quantum realm.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
and it even goes beyond that because it proves that overunity is possible and that a system can create energy.
it proves that the conservation of energy is wrong.
at least the conservation of mass still stands.
and it did all that without taking it into the quantum realm.
And here is one that requires some sort of proof, since it is in opposition to the extremely well tested law of conservation of energy. What I see is hand waving and positive statements, rather than any kind of proof. There is not even any kind of erroneous math given.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
And here is one that requires some sort of proof, since it is in opposition to the extremely well tested law of conservation of energy. What I see is hand waving and positive statements, rather than any kind of proof. There is not even any kind of erroneous math given.
why would erroneous math be needed , its just a simple math problem , why fake it.
where ET = energy of electron transition between energy levels EPH1 = the energy of the photon that is absorbed EPH2 = the energy of the photon that is emitted EPR = the energy of the proton
ET = (EPH1 + EPR) - (EPH2 + EPR)
ET = 0
since the electron does transit between energy levels and since any motion requires energy according to the laws of physics.
ET cannot be represented as zero in the above because that does not allow for energy conservation.
the above is what science currently say's happens.
which is against physics laws.
you cant have both and have a stable foundation.
so the correct equation would be
where ET = energy of electron transition between energy levels EPH1 = the energy of the photon that is absorbed EPH2 = the energy of the photon that is emitted EPR = the energy of the proton eTE1 = electron transition energy 1 ( to E1) eTE2 = electron transition energy 2 ( to EO)
since the electron transition energy is determined above this allows for determining the energy of the emitted photon as the atom will assume its previous state.
EPH2 = ET - EPH1
EPH2 = .0098 J
so a loss of .0002 J has been accounted for and energy was conserved.
we all know that light causes an atom to get excited. this causes heat , that heat is then transferred to the surroundings , using what physics say's about the energy emitted by a atom when it emits a photon would result in the following occurrence.
the sun would strike a atom then the atom emits a photon with the same exact charge then that photon would hit another atom and another and another and there would be a constant build up of heat in our atmosphere and in a short while we would have all been toasted.
it would be a never ending chain reaction.
thankfully science is wrong about this.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
why would erroneous math be needed , its just a simple math problem , why fake it.
where ET = energy of electron transition between energy levels EPH1 = the energy of the photon that is absorbed EPH2 = the energy of the photon that is emitted EPR = the energy of the proton
ET = (EPH1 + EPR) - (EPH2 + EPR)
ET = 0
This part of your reply is wrong. ET is the energy which is received by the electron from the photon, which then disappears. When the electron drops back down to the lower energy state it re-emits a photon of that exact energy. The total energy change for the electron is 0. That is
EL0 = energy of the electron in the lower energy state ET = energy of electron transition between energy levels EL1 = energy of the electron in the higher energy state EPH1 = the energy of the photon that is absorbed EPH2 = the energy of the photon that is emitted EPR = the energy of the photon
So: EL1 = ET = EL0 + EPH1 EPH2 = EL2 - ET = EPH1 EPR = ET = EPH1 = EPH2
And all measurements of the transition agree that the net energy coming out on the emitted electron is exactly the energy that went in on the absorbed electron. There is no loss of energy. ENERGY IS CONSERVED, absolutely.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
ET is the energy which is received by the electron from the photon
I have a really hard time thinking about a photon moving at the speed of light hitting a electron moving at apx speed of light there seems to be too much chance involved.
if we slow it down to a slow motion video we get almost no chance at all.
I think the photon is bent in to the proton by the gravity of the proton or nucleus, the proton absorbs the photon and its positive charge.
the protons charge increases and this increases (expands) the electromagnetic field that the electron is riding on , and that is why the electron moves out to EO2 from EO1
thats why I used ET
energy of electron transition between energy levels
not the energy that caused the transition which would be the energy of the photon but the energy that would be required to move the electron from EO1 to EO2
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Bill if you are going to body perhaps point out we can quantum mark each individual electrons in an atom, we can measure its energy we can even resonate it we can precisely knock it out of orbit.
We even stored 35 computer bits around a single electron in an atom back in 2009
In 2010 came the advent of attosecond spectroscopy and science started probing the individual electron photon interactions and energy in sort of photographic way
The attosecond imaging helps because you can think up some quirky QM things that theory says should happen if you setup and experiment and it always does.
BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON ... WAVES HANDS
ET is the energy which is received by the electron from the photon
I have a really hard time thinking about a photon moving at the speed of light hitting a electron moving at apx speed of light there seems to be too much chance involved.
==. ' Now take the electron. Even if its velocity is close to that of light – 10^10 cm/s – it will have a momentum of only about 10^-17 g cm/s. The gamma photon used for illumination has a very short wavelength ( say, 6 10^13 cm) and a momentum of 10^-14, which is thousands of times that of the electron. So, when a photon hits an electron, it is like a railway train smashing into a baby- carriage.’
/ ABC’s of quantum mechanics. By V. Rydnik. Page 98-99. / ==.
it just helps when I can click on the (re whoever) link above to read what the poster is replying to.
today mine says re paul also . I suppose the data base is doing mysql editing on its own. because later you stated that your post were being duplicated and I cant find them either.
but as an example your following post 45222 is addressed to socratus.
Quote:
Re: The law of conservation and transformation energy [Re: socratus] #45222 - Yesterday at 03:09 PM If a poster were trolling and in the course of so doing asked a question; then, if another poster responded without answering that question, that action would provide an opportunity for further trolling.
Would you agree with this?
Originally Posted By: Bill S. it still leaves Paul’s question unanswered.
Would it not seem a little paranoid to fail to recognise that this statement actually supports your position.
it could be that as the databasse editor was deleting the extra post that you were seeing , the post numbers could have been adjusted also.
still that does not really matter , its just easier to be able to see what a poster is replying to when Im reading his reply.
my browser crashed while clicking the re links which might be due to someone editing the database who doesnt exactly know what their doing...maybe not.
my browser has never crashed before on this web site.
Quote:
I will charitably infer that your computer has a mind of its own.
it would seem that its the server that the database is located on that has a mind of its own , not my computer , actually it would be the mysql database itself , this forum and every word in it is stored in a mysql database , mysql is a very good very secure database as long as its editor also very good and takes proper precautions in secuing the database.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
My reply to Paul was a very simplified way of expressing it. It basically used the Bohr atom, which is way out of date. Of course the electrons aren't in orbits, they are in wave functions that don't look much like anything I can think of. Your link to the holographic probability map is about as close as we can come to actually visualizing what it would look like. But the Bohr atom seems to be about the level that Paul is looking at. And in this particular case it doesn't get too far out. Of course he is doing a lot of hand waving to claim I am wrong, but that is what he has been doing for many many years.
There are indeed a lot of things going on in the world of what used to be called atomic physics. Things are being measured with unprecedented precision and they are still getting answers consistent with the conservation of energy.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
your reply to orac referenced me , so I will give a reply to your reference if thats ok with you.
Quote:
My reply to Paul was a very simplified way of expressing it. It basically used the Bohr atom, which is way out of date.
in the below video there are actual scientist performing experiments on actual atoms , not simulated (programed sequences) that produce a image that the programmer wants the program to produce.
Quote:
Rice University physicists have built an accurate model of part of the solar system inside a single atom. In a new paper in Physical Review Letters, Rice's team and collaborators from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Vienna University of Technology showed they could make an electron orbit the atomic nucleus in the same way that Jupiter's Trojan asteroids orbit the sun. The findings uphold a 1920 prediction by physicist Niels Bohr.
so , I suppose you have a choice to believe what you want whether its computer programmed exeriments carried out on a computer that does not have everything accounted for , or the real thing.
Quote:
Of course he is doing a lot of hand waving to claim I am wrong, but that is what he has been doing for many many years.
I'm not claiming that your wrong , I'm claiming that I'm right! also , you registered in 2010 , thats only 2 years , so how could I have been waving my hands and claiming that your wrong for many many years when you havent even been here for many many years?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.