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 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#56255 - 07/13/16 02:36 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Sam ,I do wish that you would stop taking things out of context
because the readers probably still have the ability to comprehend
the meanings of a reply.

Originally Posted By: Sam
Where would the energy to emit the next “almost highest energy,” or “next-highest energy,” photon come from?


my reply to your question above was...

Originally Posted By: paul
the same place !!!

the atom continues to release its excess energy.


I believe that my reply was clear enough as we already know
that the atom releases its excess energy as it cools.

Originally Posted By: Sam
Because the “group of atoms” isn’t cooling, is it?


yes the group of atoms are cooling but when you use the words
"group of atoms" I think that would be sort of misleading
and the words
(layers of atoms at certain temperature ranges) should be used
instead.

you certainly must not think that it would be likely that
any two atoms located within a distance of a mile or so
would have a temperature differential that would be significant.

I certainly dont.

Quote:
Well, I’m glad to see you’re maybe starting to see the need for a group of atoms,
if you want to describe what is really creating the solar spectrum.


not really as the temperature differences that would be felt by a "group of atoms" would not be local.
.

the temperature differences would be in layers where the
temperatures gradually decrease as you get closer to the suns surface.

Quote:
By your logic here, a greenhouse shouldn’t work either, since it is blocking all that heat coming from the sun.


no, a greenhouse does not block the heat from the sun
it is an enclosure that holds the heat from the
sun inside the enclosure.

note: glass is not used in the below example.

if you fill that enclosure with nothing but co2 molecules
then the co2 molecules will absorb the frequencies
that a co2 molecule can absorb and at the same time it becomes
a sun blocker because it has prevented that amount of the suns
heat from reaching the inside surfaces of the greenhouse.

the important part in the above is that the excited co2
molecules cannot absorb another photon until they emit a
photon ...

once the co2 molecules have become saturated they cannot
absorb more sunlight so portions of the sunlight will reach
the inside surfaces of the greenhouse causing the inside
surfaces of the greenhouse to warm slightly.

and when the inside surfaces of the greenhouse do emit
back radiation the co2 cannot absorb that back radiation and
the back radiation exits the greenhouse.

Quote:
The planet cools by radiating away the longer-wave heat (to the right of 3 microns) from the planet, as the graph I posted above shows.


from what I understand you seem to be saying that the full
spectrum that the sun emits does not include the long wave
frequencies that the co2 in the atmosphere could absorb.

but it is my understanding that sunlight does include all
of the frequencies in the spectrum and even though there
is a tiny amount of co2 in the atmosphere the suns light
is everywhere in the atmosphere and all of the co2 becomes
excited / saturated by the incoming sun light so the back
radiation will not be absorbed by the already excited
co2 molecules in the atmosphere and the amount of emitted
heat from the earths surface that could be absorbed by the
co2 molecules in the atmosphere if the co2 molecules were not
already saturated leaves the earth.


co2 causes cooling not warming.

so co2 basically holds heat during the day and at night
it becomes able to radiate that stored energy to the
earths surface where the energy warms the earth and at night
the co2 can re-absorb re-emit the emitted heat from the earths
surface over and over again , it just cant do that on the
sun lit side of the earth.


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

Top
.
#56256 - 07/13/16 07:12 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
Sam ,I do wish that you would stop taking things out of context
because the readers probably still have the ability to comprehend
the meanings of a reply.

Originally Posted By: Sam
Where would the energy to emit the next “almost highest energy,” or “next-highest energy,” photon come from?


my reply to your question above was...

Originally Posted By: paul
the same place !!!

the atom continues to release its excess energy.



One problem. When an atom emits the highest possible energy photon it has to drop to its lowest energy state to do so. Therefore there is no energy available to emit any more photons until it has been re-energized.

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

Top
#56257 - 07/13/16 11:38 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
One problem. When an atom emits the highest possible energy photon it has to drop to its lowest energy state to do so.


that wouldnt happen because the atom cools as it gets closer to
the surface of the sun not all of a sudden and the only reason
that the atom does emit photons is because it is cooling and
releasing its excess energy.

so it would be a gradual process of many photon emissions
as the atom cools not a single photon emission.

the emissions would occur rapidly however but the atom
would emit the full spectrum as it cools.

so the photon emission is bound by and controlled by the temperature gradient
that the atom encounters as it gets closer to the suns surface.

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

Top
#56259 - 07/15/16 03:01 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Now all layman need to come up with is a way to connect temperature to energy of orbitals laugh

1.) Ionization energy is qualitatively defined as the amount of energy required to remove a bound electron from it's stable level

2.) Temperature is an objective comparative measure of the kinetic energy of the particles in a substance. It is the movement of the WHOLE molecule.

Ionization does not equal temperature except apparently to layman smile

Lets give you an image of temperature to have in your head, and when that molecule bangs into the fluid in a thermometer it makes the column of liquid expand because they are jiggling more. That is how you layman most often measure temperature.



The emission from the sun is caused by TEMPERATURE and the emission is EXACTLY the same as an incandescent bulb. If you decrease the temperature of the bulb filament or the sun they emit differently.

So using the incandescent light bulb explain how the TEMPERATURE becomes LIGHT for me please ... this I have to hear.

I will let you in a big secret there are multiple ways to emit light that don't involve electron orbitals. Try looking at Sonoluminescence, Triboluminescence and Piezoluminescence which are all forms of mechanical release of light. There are also a number of electrical, magnetic, nuclear and chemical that don't involve electron orbitals at all. In fact it is fair to say atomic orbitals are only involved in a handfull of the hundreds of way you can cause the emission of EM and it is in the minority. You use radio, tv and a microwave probably everyday and none of those involve atomic orbitals either, yet all have emission of EM.

THE MEMO IS .... YOU DON'T NEED ATOMIC ORBITALS TO GENERATE LIGHT (ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES)

So my question is why do you keep getting the atomic orbitals involved .. evidence please using the incandescent bulb?

This was my problem with Bill G's original answer the moment he used the word orbitals IT IS NOT THE STANDARD SCIENCE ANSWER, you don't need orbitals. A particle (which has no electrons or orbitals) behaves exactly the same way and gives off the same tell tale thermal emission in DEFIANCE OF THE ANSWER ABOVE WHICH SAYS ORBITALS ARE INVOLVED.

The scientific simple answer is when any charged particle moves it creates electromagnetic radiation as it is changing the EM fields, all matter contains charged particles ... so temperature like all motion causes an emission, DOH smile

Yes it really is that simple but what that answer doesn't tell you is why it is quantized and at those frequencies patterns which Mr Planck solved.

You may now be able to understand a white dwarf which has no electrons left and no nuclear reaction yet it still glows bright white ..... wow who would predict that ... the orbitals the orbitals master they are gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf

So science says any answer that involves the word ORBITAL is wrong and we have a pile of formal proofs.

Disclaimer: No atomic orbitals were required or hurt in the making of this post.


Edited by Orac (07/15/16 07:07 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56261 - 07/15/16 01:03 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul I should say your last answer doesn't involve orbitals so it is at least better than the responses from Sam and Bill G. Why do the dam orbitals keep coming up people, give it up.

It's not hard it's pretty much explained in one paragraph in the thermal radiation page lets highlight the key bits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
Quote:
Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero.[3] It represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Thermal energy consists of the kinetic energy of random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. All matter with a temperature by definition is composed of particles which have kinetic energy, and which interact with each other. These atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles, i.e., protons and electrons, and kinetic interactions among matter particles result in charge-acceleration and dipole-oscillation. This results in the electrodynamic generation of coupled electric and magnetic fields, resulting in the emission of photons, radiating energy away from the body through its surface boundary. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, does not require the presence of matter to propagate and travels in the vacuum of space infinitely far if unobstructed.


It's pretty dam simple even a layman should be able to understand it yet somehow the layman keep bringing us back to the stupid atomic orbitals.

Single charged particles clumped together will give off thermal emission and they don't even have any orbitals ... it has nothing to do with orbitals.

CHARGE PARTICLE + MOVEMENT is the answer for goodness sake it's not rocket science people. I have never seen layman make such a simple thing so hard, have none of you ever moved a magnet near a wire at school and measured what happens?

If I see one more post about thermal emission that includes the word orbital or electrons, I think I will request AR2 to ban the person for gross stupidity.

The thermal emission is because lots of charged particles are jiggling around being accelerated and decelerated and because of that they emit EM. You make them hot they jiggle more and emit more .... NOT HARD PEOPLE.

Funny conclusion to that if you are smart is waving your hand gives off EM smile
Someone even got it right here ... something that would never happen on this forum.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200217/can-i-produce-radio-waves-by-waving-my-hand

So the take home lesson is there are hundreds of ways to produce EM and very few involve orbitals.

END OF STORY.


Edited by Orac (07/15/16 01:30 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56262 - 07/15/16 01:30 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Now all layman need to come up with is a way to connect temperature to energy of orbitals


why should that be the responsibility of laymen ?


Quote:
1.) Ionization energy is qualitatively defined as the amount of energy required to remove a bound electron from it's stable level


in this thread there are no atoms in "it's stable level"


Quote:
2.) Temperature is an objective comparative measure of the kinetic energy of the particles in a substance. It is the movement of the WHOLE molecule.


in this thread I dont think there are any molecules when the focus is at or near the surface of the sun.

Quote:
Lets give you an image of temperature to have in your head, and when that molecule bangs into the fluid in a thermometer it makes the column of liquid expand because they are jiggling more. That is how you layman most often measure temperature.


the liquid expands due to a change in energy level of the atoms in the molecules inside the thermometer.
the liquid wouldnt expand simply because the molecules are jiggling around.

Quote:
The emission from the sun is caused by TEMPERATURE and the emission is EXACTLY the same as an incandescent bulb. If you decrease the temperature of the bulb filament or the sun they emit differently.


I wouldnt say exactly the same , the filament of a incandescent bulb is heated up because of the electrical current that passes
through the thin filament.

Quote:
So using the incandescent light bulb explain how the TEMPERATURE becomes LIGHT for me please ... this I have to hear.


a force is applied with a angular motion to the shaft of a DC generator.
the generator "generates" pulses of electric current due to the lines of magnetic force cutting
through the fields of a coil of copper wire inside the generator.

it is not a continuous current it breaks at a frequency that is controlled by the rpm's of the generator.

the incandescent bulb is then fed this pulsing current that passes through the filament of the bulb.
the bulb heats up and cools repeatedly over and over as the current pulses through the filament.

the electrons of the atoms in the filament pass the charge of the pulsing current from one atom
to the next atom.

this causes the electrons of the atoms to build excessive energy while the current is pulsing
current in sync with the generator and when the pulse has stopped the atoms release the excessive
energy that has built up.

this occurs over and over like it does on the sun.

think of this ball as being a filament being heated up , notice it does not glow white hot
until the heat source is removed.




Quote:
You may now be able to understand a white dwarf which has no electrons left and no nuclear reaction yet it still glows bright white ..... wow who would predict that ... the orbitals the orbitals master they are gone.


in the above video the ball only glows white hot after the heat source has been removed
are they sure that the dwarf has no electrons? couldnt the dwarf simply be in its final cooling stage like the ball.

Quote:
So science says any answer that involves the word ORBITAL is wrong and we have a pile of formal proofs.


science says a lot of things and science uses the word "ORBIT" and "ORBITS" and "ORBITAL" all the time and science
teaches the same ... so science needs to correct itself before science starts telling its students that THEY are wrong.






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

Top
#56263 - 07/15/16 01:32 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
science says a lot of things and science uses the word "ORBIT" and "ORBITS" and "ORBITAL" all the time and science
teaches the same ... so science needs to correct itself before science starts telling its students that THEY are wrong.

So how do you get a heat emission OFF something that doesn't have an orbital and I can give you thousands of those situations?

Second show me any science literature that says thermal emission has anything to do with orbitals. The references above certainly don't and all the comments on this stupid forum are about almost nothing but orbitals. Even Bill G wants to talk about orbitals and levels and he is supposedly a man who knows his science.

THE ANSWER is CHARGE + MOTION .. that is all you need to know ... seriously people.

Anyhow this has gone beyond stupid, I will leave you to it. I actually can't tolerate these levels of layman disease.

I think what this forum shows is just how set in their ways people on this forum are even when you can easily show that are blatantly and clearly wrong. The first claim by everyone is I am not wrong, even if they have to resort to ignoring the blinding obvious fact they are DEAD WRONG.

So talking about orbitals with heat emission is wrong ... I don't care how many way any idiot wants to get them involved they aren't.


Edited by Orac (07/15/16 01:46 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56264 - 07/15/16 01:43 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Second show me any science literature that says thermal emission has anything to do with orbitals.


how about the emission of a photon by any atom!

when a hydrogen atom changes its energy level its
electron changes its orbit.

do you need me to post an article?

basically the orbit change IS THE CHANGE IN ENERGY LEVEL !!!!

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

Top
#56265 - 07/15/16 01:47 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
That is ionisation NOTHING TO DO WITH HEAT EMISSION.

It produces a single frequency .. MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT to Bill G.

Stop mixing up different things which was also my complaint at the outset.


Edited by Orac (07/15/16 01:48 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56266 - 07/15/16 01:48 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
THE ANSWER is CHARGE + MOTION .. that is all you need to know ... seriously people.


oh thank you , now all I ever need to do is remember that
charge and motion is the answer to everything.

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

Top
#56267 - 07/15/16 01:50 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: paul
oh thank you , now all I ever need to do is remember that charge and motion is the answer to everything.

brilliant!

Well it's better than GOD.

Now you are just trolling and so we have probably reach the I don't give a rats what you believe point and exit.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56268 - 07/15/16 01:51 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
That is ionisation NOTHING TO DO WITH HEAT EMISSION.

It produces a single frequency .. MY ORIGINAL COMPLAINT to Bill G.


thanks again.

and as the atom cools the atom produces all of the frequencies
in the spectrum.

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

Top
#56269 - 07/15/16 01:55 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Now you are just trolling and so we have probably reach the I don't give a rats what you believe point and exit.


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

Top
#56270 - 07/15/16 01:56 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Correct which is why you were closer than Bill G originally .. I was actually shocked he didn't know the answer.

If you haven't worked it out the emission shape is basically the average energy of the movement speed vibration of the charged particles. That holds for any particle(s) with or without electrons and orbitals.

This really is not hard most children can understand it and it is taught these days to 12 year olds.

Now wave goodbye to me and emit an EM wave sign off smile

Take care Paul, may you be in heaven 10min before the devil knows you dead and all that.


Edited by Orac (07/15/16 02:09 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56271 - 07/15/16 02:44 PM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
one more thing before you slip away behind the curtain
Mr Wizzard.

Quote:
If you haven't worked it out the emission shape is basically the average energy of the movement speed vibration of the charged particles. That holds for any particle(s) with or without electrons and orbitals.


what we are told about a photon emission and the way it
is depicted is as if it were a tiny object that is emitted
away from an atom in a direction.

but we know that is not the case because a photon is emitted
in all directions like a expanding hollow sphere...

I added hollow just now because a single photon expands
away from its emitting atom.

so in the above when you state that ...

Quote:
the emission shape is basically the average energy of the movement speed vibration of the charged particles.


and this does not mean that the emission shape would be
different in front of its movement , to the side of its
movement , to the rear of its movement , top , bottom
... etc

the emission is bound to the average energy of the sum of
all motion of the particle as it is emitted.

in that there is no deformation of the emission as the
emission is formed and emitted due to any motion of the
particle.











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

Top
#56272 - 07/16/16 02:44 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Yes it has doppler shift applied, obviously at normal speeds its very very low and you can't measure it. From a fast moving sun in another galaxy it's very easy to detect and you know it as cosmological red shift. There is a slight hand wave in that answer in that classical doppler differs slightly from relativistic doppler but for the example you are using they will both give the same answer. However I suspect you are talking about the microscopic doppler of you standing near the atom.

Now if you were really thinking you would realize there is also a recoil of the atom as it emits the photon. As the atom is charged it must therefore produced a thermal emission and it does and has a name of recoil temperature or sometimes photon recoil heating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil_temperature

As given in the article it's the lower limit for laser cooling and is very small under 1uK (1 micro Kelvin), you need tricks to go lower.

Small as the recoil may be it has been directly measured many hundreds of different ways in efforts to push laser cooling as it had to be understood correctly. Google "recoil energy direct measurement" will get you any number of the experiments.

You may get some interest looking at the machines used which are called reaction microscopes. They can do single photons as well as other more complex kinematic processes
Reaction microscope: https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/pfeifer/page.php?id=126

So the orbital emission case that everyone on the forum seems hell bent on attributing everything too also makes a thermal emission which will catch them out completely. So when we say orbital emission is only one frequency we overlook this based really on the magnitude difference between the two emissions much like we often overlook friction it depends with how much accuracy you want to apply to the discussion. At this limit we really are splitting hairs these emission play no real role in anything that isn't down near the quantum limit.


Edited by Orac (07/16/16 04:58 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56275 - 07/16/16 05:45 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
There is a very complicated extension of your discussion that is very topical right this minute. I am not sure how much you will get but it is interesting.

Gavin Salam gave a talk which Tommaso Dorigo has done a write up on called strangely "How Much Light Does A Proton Contain"
http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/how_much_light_does_a_proton_contain-176396

It's topical because it runs around what we were discussing of charge + motion = em emission.

Quote:
Of course, the proton contains photons, as in its interior there are moving electric charges (the valence and sea quarks), and the acceleration of electric charges always involves photon emission.

Do you see what they are saying there must be what we would called photons internal to the proton ... which is rather weird to think about. We don't often think about photons being inside things, especially things like protons.

In the discussion he calculated the amount of photon energy in the proton and it won't come outside the proton which will get complicated to explain but the amount is not insignificant.
Quote:
So now we know with very good accuracy how much light do protons contain! If you think about it, it's awesome: we are made of protons, and protons are, in some part, made of light... And now we know how much of it.

See the physics is consistent ... charge + movement = EM emission ... even inside a proton smile

I probably should rephrase movement to acceleration but I will ignore that detail for now.

Even stranger think about how many protons are in your body and therefore how many photons you have inside you. Now I bags not breaking the news to the orbital believers ... nah they won't get it anyhow laugh

First principles is always fun and throws up things that will catch even seasoned scientists out because it is a different way of looking at a problem. That one will catch most average scientists out and I suspect there will be a few jokes created around it.


Edited by Orac (07/16/16 06:27 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56276 - 07/17/16 02:14 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
Now if you were really thinking you would realize there is also a recoil of the atom as it emits the photon. As the atom is charged it must therefore produced a thermal emission and it does and has a name of recoil temperature or sometimes photon recoil heating


the word recoil suggest that the atom would be moved in
a direction by a recoil due to photon emission.

since a photon emission is more of a expanding hollow sphere
and without using the word orbit then the terminology should
be changed to implosion temperature or implosion heating.

the recoil sounds more like a photon being emitted in a
direction causing the atom to recoil in the opposite
direction of photon emission.

and since a photon is emitted in all directions then
the atom should not feel any direction change due to photon emission.


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

Top
#56278 - 07/19/16 05:44 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: Orac]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
Originally Posted By: Orac
Paul I should say your last answer doesn't involve orbitals so it is at least better than the responses from Sam and Bill G. Why do the dam orbitals keep coming up people, give it up.

It's not hard it's pretty much explained in one paragraph in the thermal radiation page lets highlight the key bits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation
Quote:
Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero.[3] It represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Thermal energy consists of the kinetic energy of random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. All matter with a temperature by definition is composed of particles which have kinetic energy, and which interact with each other. These atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles, i.e., protons and electrons, and kinetic interactions among matter particles result in charge-acceleration and dipole-oscillation. This results in the electrodynamic generation of coupled electric and magnetic fields, resulting in the emission of photons, radiating energy away from the body through its surface boundary. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, does not require the presence of matter to propagate and travels in the vacuum of space infinitely far if unobstructed.


It's pretty dam simple even a layman should be able to understand it yet somehow the layman keep bringing us back to the stupid atomic orbitals.

Single charged particles clumped together will give off thermal emission and they don't even have any orbitals ... it has nothing to do with orbitals.

CHARGE PARTICLE + MOVEMENT is the answer for goodness sake it's not rocket science people. I have never seen layman make such a simple thing so hard, have none of you ever moved a magnet near a wire at school and measured what happens?

If I see one more post about thermal emission that includes the word orbital or electrons, I think I will request AR2 to ban the person for gross stupidity.

The thermal emission is because lots of charged particles are jiggling around being accelerated and decelerated and because of that they emit EM. You make them hot they jiggle more and emit more .... NOT HARD PEOPLE.

Funny conclusion to that if you are smart is waving your hand gives off EM smile
Someone even got it right here ... something that would never happen on this forum.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200217/can-i-produce-radio-waves-by-waving-my-hand

So the take home lesson is there are hundreds of ways to produce EM and very few involve orbitals.

END OF STORY.


TO ABOVE WE MUST ADD ONE MORE FACT
CZERENKOW's RADIATION

Each Collision with EM wave is able be SOURCE for other lower or more higher freg. (Hz)

em radiation)))...........m >>> motion ........((( em radiation


please hit mass m by wave (back) and (front ) You will generate
other Hz

DOUBLE SLITS ???

HOW EM wave is changing electron's motion ?
Em wave is faster than electron !!!




EM wave IS PUSHING ELECTRON !!!

1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation,which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

Exist also one more problem EM wave is giving to elecron (mass m )
special rotation



Earth is making rotation because exist INVERSE SQUARE LOW !!!
ENERGY's density near SUN is more HIGH


During double slits experiment electron is changing own motion and it starting make rotation respect to own axis !




Edited by newton (07/19/16 05:50 AM)

Top
#56279 - 07/19/16 06:48 AM Re: Sunlight [Re: newton]
newton Offline
Megastar

Registered: 09/30/12
Posts: 1209
MOTION is GENERATING waves !!!

Wave that is generating by motion can not be describe BY PLANCK's constant !!!!

THEORY
1861 J. C. Maxwell, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation,which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.

2011 Grover Swartzlander first began to examine a revolutionary concept in optical physics after studying the flight of a moth. He watched the animal use its wings to create lift..... ( find more in google)

2012 Marosz



BEFORE !!! collision with plasticyne photon's energy E1
after collision we have E2+E3 energy !!!

E2 - kinetic energy ( Plasticyne )
E3- Energy that we lost during collision !!!


Top
Page 4 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.