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 (), 224 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#56204 - 07/05/16 04:24 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The problem comes when you observe one of those spheres ... but we have done that story ... and I will now leave you smile

Calling them a wobbly sphere doesn't change what they are, any more than calling them a photon it's just a name smile

We covered that story to death before and I have corrected all the butchered science and you have something close to what science actually says. So a good time to butt out.


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 04:50 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#56205 - 07/05/16 04:52 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Im not saying it is a problem ...

but you are talking about a single artificially generated
photon.

not the naturally generated spectrum of what we call light
from our sun.

we dont see light our eyes detect vibrations.

when a object heats up its atoms are simply vibrating more.

anything that is today called a light wave or a photon of light simply causes objects to vibrate.



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

Top
#56206 - 07/05/16 05:07 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
How motion is chaging SUN's light


for example we have BULB ( yellow light )
satellite is accelerating accelerating .....

How motion changing Yellow colour ? ( colour is constant ? )
How big force is pushing SAIL ? ( constant ? )




How big force is pushing EARTH ? constant ( the same ? )


How works my eyes ( ideal support or elatic plasticine ? )


Photon >>> hot platicine

How many energy photon will lost ?

exist smaller energy's portion than photon ? ( if photon lost energy soo it schould exist lower energy portion than photon !)


Edited by newton (07/05/16 05:08 AM)

Top
#56207 - 07/05/16 05:08 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
anything that is today called a light wave or a photon of light simply causes objects to vibrate.

That is actually scary close even though I don't think you meant it to be laugh

Marosz is here to help you now Paul, so catch you later. To much plasticine and crayons for me, I am definitely exiting stage right ===========>


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 05:14 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56208 - 07/05/16 05:19 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
why would that be scary?

its exactly what happens.

its much easier to describe light as a vibration than
as a photon or a wave.

action and reaction.

a portion of the light spectrum is the same frequency of
most or any atom.

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

Top
#56209 - 07/05/16 05:24 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
photon >>> .......plasticine (object )

how big force is pushing stationary plasticine
and how big force is pushing not stationary plasticyne ?


photon >>> .......30km/s <<<plasticine


photon >>> .......plasticine >>> 30 km/s


HOW BRIGHT PICTURE IS REGISTERING CAMERA ???






RELATIVE or ABSOLUTE ?

m >>>V........M

OR

m..........V<<< M

OR

m >>>1/2V .....1/2V<<< M

do we able measure deformation ?

[img]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QvRGmH4z8MU/V...cB/s1600/22.bmp[/img]

are we able recognize that big mass M is moving or small mass m is moving ( how will look collision ? )


Big Car >>>V .....small car

small car >>>V....Big car







Edited by newton (07/05/16 05:27 AM)

Top
#56210 - 07/05/16 05:24 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
why would that be scary?

You just described the foundations of QM which is built on that exact premise and where Max Planck started. His logic was exactly the same as yours we only called it photons later.

You will now instantly retract that because you can't believe in anything to do with QM laugh


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 05:26 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56211 - 07/05/16 05:33 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
he must have been a pretty smart guy then...

I suppose that is scary and perhaps I should have waited
until halloween. sick

that doesnt mean however that I agree with QM

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

Top
#56212 - 07/05/16 05:44 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
he must have been a pretty smart guy then...

I suppose that is scary and perhaps I should have waited
until halloween. sick

that doesnt mean however that I agree with QM

Yes,he was a very smart guy and I don't claim you believe in QM.

Planck is considered the father of Quantum mechanics for exactly that thought. He started conceptually like you did with the vibrations as a concept, what he discovers is the vibrations are real and because of that they have "discrete energy amounts" as they are a vibration.

Originally Posted By: Max Planck history . wikipedia
At first Planck considered that quantisation was only "a purely formal assumption ... actually I did not think much about it...";

What it does say is you agree with it's QM's birth premise. You think that QM theory fails somewhere higher up.

There is however a massive sting in the tail of that premise smile


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 06:07 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56214 - 07/05/16 01:33 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Orac, Since you have now come around to the fact that QM is not what runs the sun, it is run by classic physics, I guess I will just go back to my policy of ignoring you.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#56215 - 07/05/16 02:28 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Yes,he was a very smart guy and I don't claim you believe in QM.


believe it or not this has spurned an interest that I
now need to explore.

Im going to see if I can find some videos on Max
we may have a lot more in common than just that simple thought.

I may have inadvertently added Max as a soul mate so I need
to check and see if he will be compatible with Issac Albert
and Carl to name a few.

it looks like we will all just get along just fine.

https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/max-planck-on-god/

Quote:
As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom

Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter.



I see that I just violated my own rules for this thread
by posting content that is religion oriented , so if anyone
would like for me to delete the religion oriented content
just say so and I will.

but you need to say so before your time expires.







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

Top
#56216 - 07/05/16 02:40 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Bill G, Do as you like, you seem to think I should care what you do, say or believe. Hell I didn't even know I was being ignored so that is how much I give a rats about you.

Let me straighten one bit however, the sun runs on QM it just doesn't involve energy levels of the material in the sun which seemed to be your claim.

White hot is white hot whether the material is hydrogen, iron, lava on earth, Bill G's head or any other material and the emission is the same because the process doesn't rely on anything to do with the material that is being heated.

The connection is between heat and electromagnetic waves NOT THE MATERIAL THAT IS BEING HEATED ... that is what actual science says. That EM waves being quantized can only accept the kinetic heat energy in quanta.

You wanted simple that is layman simple most 12 year old children can get that when told.

Whether you believe it or not I couldn't give a dam about. Go ask it on any physics forum you like and to any scientists you like.

If you can't handle that then please ignore me because I have no intention of believing anything else anytime soon, unless you have new data the science community hasn't seen.

Now good bye or discuss Bill G, I personally don't give a rats.


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 02:49 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56217 - 07/05/16 02:54 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
believe it or not this has spurned an interest that I
now need to explore.

No worries his biography gives a brief outline of him.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-bio.html

You will see he was lead to the problem you are dealing with when he was studying radiation. The question of why is the suns spectrum broad and smooth.

He formalized your vibrations into a resonant element and when you do so the energy exchanges can only be in discrete packet or quanta.

Quote:
revolutionary idea that the energy emitted by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta. The energy for a resonator of frequency v is hv where h is a universal constant, now called Planck's constant.

So when your vibrating molecules try to unload their kinetic energy they can only do so in discrete packets and that is the origin of photons but having a broad frequency range representing the broad range of kinetic energies in the molecules.

In effect old blacksmiths already knew this because they had worked white hot metal and the composition of the metal didn't change the color it always has the same distinctive color.

This is the emission curve you get using the theory for different temperatures 5000K, 4000K, 3000K

So heat any material to 5000K and you get visible light and that explains the incandescent light bulb.

When you look at molten lava you can tell the temperature just by looking at the color you don't have to know the composition at all.

Compare your suns emission graph to the 5000K curve developed by Max from theory smile

Here lets make in simple and put on the same post:


Shame I can't get them scaled the same ... but do you see the two graphs match (your image has the 5250 deg C planck graph in black). I can tell the sun is around 5000K in temperature just from the graph. What I don't have is a clue what the sun is made of that requires a different technique and different data. Our theory says it doesn't matter what the material is the heat of 5000K will produce that curve.

So Max was the first person that could explain that emission curve of the sun and it's profound implications. Yes he was religious and we don't hold that against him. His spiritual vibrations are the foundations of QM.

Anyhow that is the scientific origin of that emission curve for the sun, which I and almost all scientists believe. I think Bill G believes something else but he can argue that.


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 03:50 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56218 - 07/05/16 04:16 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
his derivation of the relationship: this was based on the revolutionary idea that the energy emitted by a resonator could only take on discrete values or quanta. The energy for a resonator of frequency v is hv where h is a universal constant, now called Planck's constant.


Im considering the above

and also seeing this

Quote:
Among these applications and developments may be mentioned Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect.


and I will look into Max's universal constant later today.

a foundation is what supports everything above it.
you must be certain that the foundation is solid and
can withstand all criticism .

it says that the energy of a resonated frequency is equal to
e = hv and that h is a "universal" constant.

I think I have a problem with that , I need to check out
how he constructed h

in other words did he include temperature as
a variable element in the construction of "h".

as the temperature always varies and is not a universal
constant in the cosmos when considering the temperatures
radiated from our sun and other suns in the cosmos and that
all frequencies are affected by external forces acting on
them.

he may have included all of that in the construction of "h"
or he may have been focusing on more local heat from our sun.

that will give me something to do later anyway.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56219 - 07/05/16 04:25 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Yes Einstein's photoelectric effect is connected. There is no relativity involved Einstein did other stuff besides relativity smile

It connects heat and light to atoms, that is why does an atom only emit and absorb limited specific frequencies in the ionization process. Einstein used Plancks formula to derive that answer which was also experimentally confirmed. It also explains some important features of atoms.

So now Max's spiritual particles had solved two of the biggest mysteries of early 1900's science.


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 04:31 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56220 - 07/05/16 04:31 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
but do you see the two graphs match


Im only seeing one graph.

its getting ridiculous how its so hard to find images that
will display on a science forum.

lawsuits should follow.

violations of the right to use for scientific discussion.



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

Top
#56221 - 07/05/16 04:36 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Compare Planks blue graph 5000K to your graph at top of atmosphere yellow (so before the light goes into the atmosphere). Your graph actually has Plancks 5250 deg C calculation on it which is that black line. There is a couple of small differences and the reason for those is even known most of which is to do with the Corona. The photons have to pass thru it.

Plancks graph

Your graph of the suns emission you used


Anyhow that is the standard science answer for what it's worth, I don't think I can help beyond that you need to do your own studying.

Bill G clearly has some other idea for the curve shape which I have never heard so you might want to get his idea to see if there is any merit. He isn't talking to me so I can't help, I am always the bad boy smile

Same as I always say I am not here to convert you so take every argument on it's merit. I don't mind what you end up believing but I have given you the true scientific view which should match up to any science article you read and hopefully they make sense now.


Edited by Orac (07/05/16 05:49 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56222 - 07/05/16 09:09 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
AH HA !!!

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

Quote:
To save his theory, Planck had to resort to using the then controversial theory of statistical mechanics,[6] which he described as "an act of despair I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics.




so statistics were broken out into mainstream by Maxwell.

OK, Im out I have read enough.

you cant have a strong foundation based on statistics.





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

Top
#56223 - 07/06/16 01:52 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
It was Max Planck not Maxwell.

Haha no problems. There is another sting in the tail you won't like anyhow which I warned you about. I suspect it will be a bigger no go for you anyhow.

On the top graph is a black line to the right marked classical theory (5000K). That is the calculation of what the emission should look like if you use classical physics thermodynamics. If you accept the result then classical thermodynamics is wrong.

Historically this is the first result science accepts in it's modern framework that produces a result that is at odds with Classical physics. That is why I and anyone who has studied high level physics knows this background intimately as it marks the start of the death of classical physics.

That is what had me shaking my head when Bill G was claiming the process was classical.

So what you need to do is come up with a theory that produces that emission curve using only classical physics and you can change the whole of science. We don't have any other way to produce that emission curve (I exclude Bill G at this point as he hasn't published his answer) other than move into the modern framework and leave classical physics behind.

Does that make my expression scary close make sense now smile

So anyhow that I believe leaves us no more common ground, and I am outta here. I will leave you to discus this now with Bill G and his theory.

Good luck with it all.

Now for some constructive feedback is there anywhere in my discussion you feel I could have simplified it further and went into too much detail?


Edited by Orac (07/06/16 04:14 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56224 - 07/06/16 12:22 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136



the graph shows how the atom is releasing its energy
from looking at the way that the energy is released in
the graph as the atoms cool, they slowly begin to release
tiny amounts of energy @ 0 um then there is a progressively
larger amount of energy release that begins @ apx 0.2 um
that builds to the 5000 K curve in the graph.

each of the energy releases is a separate frequency in
the spectrum.

the graph only shows the blue , green and red lines

would I be wrong if I said that each of the colored lines
in the graph represented a single energy release from the
same atom as it cools and streams energy?

would I be wrong if I said that the entire spectrum of
frequencies is a continuous stream of separate energy releases
as single atoms stream the excess energy as they cool.

so that as each atom cools it is following a precise order
of energy releases that can be considered a packet of all
frequencies.












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

Top
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >



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.