Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
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.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 462 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#56174 - 07/02/16 01:31 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Sam

for someone who claims to have taken courses in climate science
or whatever climate classes you attended and are obviously involved in the politics of climate change you sure do rely on orac to participate more in your discussion threads than yourself.

I had the impression that you really wanted to discuss the
follow the photon example

and Im guessing that the discussion didnt quite go in the direction that you had assumed that it would go.

so instead of this becoming a discussion it turned into
a pat each other on the back session that kind of turned
my stomach as I watched it evolve into the normal type of
thread that a thread turns into when orac becomes involved
in a thread , mostly lies , and deceit , and name calling.

your brand of science I suppose.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
.
#56175 - 07/02/16 04:24 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
2.7 microns
4.3 microns
15 microns

2.7um is 2700nm it is still off the page to the right from your graph which ends at 2500nm. It also has nothing to do with the IR camera and video which doesn't go anywhere up near that frequency. 4700nm and 15000nm are so far off the right you need to make the graph what 8 times wider.

Now go away ... you are playing the stupid fool troll and I am not playing this game.

Keep going and I will ask AR2 to treat you as Marosz. I am not asking you to believe anything, Marosz is allowed to believe his junk as well. If you do want to discuss things, then it at least needs to be intelligent or just post your own spam threads like Marosz does and I will ignore. I ignored your relativity threads on that basis and it created no issue, you got your say for whatever purpose you think it did.


Edited by Orac (07/02/16 04:47 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56176 - 07/02/16 12:47 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Im not sure why you keep pointing that out orac.

are you saying that the solar radiation does not extend
beyond the graph?

or does the graph itself control the full range of
solar irradiation?

or is it that you are simply trying to deceive the
readers of this forum as usual.



Im pretty sure that the range of solar radiation must extend
well beyond 2500 nm ... get it?

it must extend into the three ranges that have a total
range of 9.7nm

2.7 microns
4.3 microns
15 microns

its just not pictured in the graph because its insignificant.
or because it would make the image too long.

perhaps you can comprehend that now that I have let you
in on the secret.

most all graphs that deal with climate change only use
a cherry picked range of data and you should know that
already.

but that would require the ability to retain data
in memory from instruction.

btw , I didnt make the above image myself its not the
one that I would have preferred to use , the one that
I wanted to use from the wiki solar irradiance page will
not display on this science forum.

but for some reason there is a co2 absorption that is
shown in the absorption bands at just beyond 2000 nm in the above graph and in the graph on the below wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance







_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56177 - 07/02/16 02:43 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Your pretty sure ... Marosz is absolutely sure ... who to believe .. but Marosz draws better pictures and does experiments with plasticine and the green fan.

So hard to decide who to believe laugh

It seems important to you, so how about I just say I believe you Paul.

Now we are done .. Don't direct stuff at me please religious troll .. you have successfully reached Marosz stupid level and will now be treated as such.


Edited by Orac (07/02/16 04:34 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56178 - 07/02/16 05:28 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Im amazed at the way you act as if marosz and myself are
somehow wrong about things its almost as if you believe that
by using your cherry picked BS you can somehow correct your
really large pile of wrongness through deception or manipulation
of extremely out of context post.


also: in almost every post in this thread that you have made
you say that you are done with it ... and your not going to
reply any more ... your ignoring me ... or some wording to
that extent.

being wrong seems to be entangled into your every thought
and mental processes this is one reason why I always check
what you write for validity.

as in the below that sam questioned

Quote:
But I don’t know if a photon tends to become longer in wavelength, with each “re-emission,” after being absorbed, in successive encounters along its mean free path, though I suspect so.
To be clear, I do know it’s not the “same” photon being “re-emitted” after being absorbed, but for the sake of this cartoonlike description, it is the “only” photon we’re following.

I expect that (after being absorbed and ‘re-emitted’) it would be of a somewhat longer wavelength over 80% of the time or maybe even 95% of the time, and only re-emitted at the same frequency less than 20% of the time and more likely less than 5% of the time.

I also wonder if the “re-emitted” photon could be of a somewhat shorter wavelength than the absorbed photon, on rare occasions (probably less than 1% of the time), if a newly energized CO2 molecule (with recently absorbed photon) were to be kinetically bumped with enough force at the right time and angle.



and he then asked

Quote:
So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility? Thanks for your time!


and your reply

Quote:
Yes all your ideas are all valid, how important or relevant they are to any given pathway will vary and I am not sure you can use them as a general rule.


you just agreed that a range of 80% to 95% of
all photon emissions of a co2 molecule
will have a longer wavelength.

and you also agreed that only a range of 20% to 5% of
all photon emissions of a co2 molecule
will have the same wavelength as the absorbed photon.

thats really interesting since the infrared value of
carbon dioxide gas is either 667.38 or 2349.16

and its two frequencies are 667 cm-1 or 2350 cm-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Quote:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at its two infrared-active vibrational frequencies


this is revealing about both yours and samwiks character
and since samwik has taken classes in climate science or
whatever this fake science that you two are promoting
really shows the extremes that you two will go to in order
to prop up your BELIEFS because this garbage that you guys
are promoting certainly isnt science.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56179 - 07/02/16 08:43 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
one other thing for now , orac

Quote:
So, do these notions of mine, about how heat changes (usually getting longer) as it undergoes successive radiative transfer, have any meaning or validity or utility.


even if a co2 molecule did emit a photon with a
longer or shorter wavelength than the photon that it absorbed.
the energy between the absorbed photon and the emitted
photon would not change.

so when sam is using the word (heat) in the above he is
trying to preach his BELIEF that co2 is causing warming
through manipulation as he then later tries to instill a notion
that other people who dont have the same BELIEF that he
does may be fools.

its true sam many people have been misguided using tactics
like you and orac have displayed here in this thread , but
that does not say that they are the fools.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56180 - 07/02/16 09:06 PM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Keep going and I will ask AR2 to treat you as Marosz.


you keep posting false information and I will do the same

that also goes for samwik

this is supposed to be a science forum and BELIEF is not
a part of science.

so you guys can either use actual data that can be
supported by actual science or I will complain each and every time that you dont.

how about that?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56181 - 07/03/16 12:49 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Originally Posted By: paul
Im amazed at the way you act...
...

this is revealing about both yours and samwiks character
and since samwik has taken classes in climate science or
whatever this fake science that you two are promoting
really shows the extremes that you two will go to in order
to prop up your BELIEFS because this garbage that you guys
are promoting certainly isnt science.
Gosh Paul, after all these years here at SAGG....
I’ve never known you to be so sensitive, or ever seen you so upset.





Have a cup of tea, and maybe later we can try following some "Stokes-shifted" photons.

~ cool
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#56182 - 07/03/16 02:57 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
if any of the readers are still following this thread
I may have found a initial problem with the process
in the example.

that problem is that in order for the co2 molecule in the
atmosphere to absorbe an IR photon that has been emitted
by the object on the earth the photon to be absorbed
must have one of two specific frequencies.

and these two frequencies are 667 cm-1 (4.26um) or 2349 cm-1 (15um)

the next item I will attempt to find somewhere will be
what specific type of object or types of objects will be required
in order to have them emit an IR photon in those two
frequencies due to absorption of a photon of sunlight.

Im thinking that with only 2 possible frequencies of
transmitted IR from the object on the earth the odds
of an IR photon emission occurring in either of the two
frequencies would be
( 2 to the total number of frequencies in the IR range)

so it might be hard to find a object or objects that will
emit those two specific frequencies due to photon absorption
of sunlight but I will look tomorrow or monday and post it
if I find it.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56183 - 07/03/16 08:54 AM Re: Follow the photon! Is this right? [Re: samwik]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: samwik
Have a cup of tea, and maybe later we can try following some "Stokes-shifted" photons.

Start a new thread if you do, I like my stoke shifted coffee hot, might be interesting discussion and we can leave the religious fringe and THE OTHER READERS with this rubbish. laugh

I love the concept of other readers, must be like the ones on Marosz threads and the ones that commented on the relativity thread besides, Sam and I. Reality check is not a strong suit of these guys and even saying you believe them is not enough .... I think they want a full conversion smile


Edited by Orac (07/03/16 01:50 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.