|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 20:12:58 GMT
I have made it totally clear I do not agree with that statement. Seems both statements are true. What do you disagree with? I am asking the same question again because your answer did not address the question. Everybody who has studied the topic agrees Plancks energy quanta was in his resonators and not in the light. We are not talking about Planck's views of light. We are talking about photons. You seem to think that energy value that Planck postulated that was confirmed by measurements was not a photon. If not then what was it? A photon in the resonators? Or a photon someplace else? Or something different than a photon? If so what? Planck knew very clearly what he had found was controversial. He was conservative and did not want to speculate that what he had found would overturn the classical theory of light. But it did. How many times does it have to be said to you? The historians agree with me. Nobody agrees with you apart from people who have no idea at all. What you fail to understand is popularity is not science. The only questions at hand are is a photon energy quanta and did Planck discover energy quanta. You want to bring a lot of trivial and arbitrary nonsense to the front to dispute that. I have asked you that if discovery is not finding something then what is it? You continue to dodge that question. You are being extremely childish. Planck says energy quanta is related to absorption and emission. He says light quanta is stepping outside the boundary of his hypothesis. His colleaques think his situation is tragic. The historians say he quantasised the resonators but not the radiation. No matter how many times you squat down in front of me and produce your turds I am not going to think they are important. Yes you have so many opinions. Yes you think they are oh so important.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 20:14:17 GMT
We are not talking about Planck's views of light. We are talking about photons. It amounts to the same thing you f**king idiot
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 20:20:38 GMT
Seems both statements are true. What do you disagree with? I am asking the same question again because your answer did not address the question. We are not talking about Planck's views of light. We are talking about photons. You seem to think that energy value that Planck postulated that was confirmed by measurements was not a photon. If not then what was it? A photon in the resonators? Or a photon someplace else? Or something different than a photon? If so what? Planck knew very clearly what he had found was controversial. He was conservative and did not want to speculate that what he had found would overturn the classical theory of light. But it did. What you fail to understand is popularity is not science. The only questions at hand are is a photon energy quanta and did Planck discover energy quanta. You want to bring a lot of trivial and arbitrary nonsense to the front to dispute that. I have asked you that if discovery is not finding something then what is it? You continue to dodge that question. You are being extremely childish. Planck says energy quanta is related to absorption and emission. He says light quanta is stepping outside the boundary of his hypothesis. His colleaques think his situation is tragic. The historians say he quantasised the resonators but not the radiation. No matter how many times you squat down in front of me and produce your turds I am not going to think they are important. Yes you have so many opinions. Yes you think they are oh so important. Well having resorted to ad hominem as opposed to squarely answering the questions you have proven you have lost those arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 20:33:40 GMT
You are being extremely childish. Planck says energy quanta is related to absorption and emission. He says light quanta is stepping outside the boundary of his hypothesis. His colleaques think his situation is tragic. The historians say he quantasised the resonators but not the radiation. No matter how many times you squat down in front of me and produce your turds I am not going to think they are important. Yes you have so many opinions. Yes you think they are oh so important. Well having resorted to ad hominem as opposed to squarely answering the questions you have proven you have lost those arguments. You are just a troll. It excites you to see another person working and dancing to your insane tune. f**k you You are the same disgusting c.unt of a person you always were. Nothing better to do than wind somebody up with endless games and stupidity
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 20:47:40 GMT
Well having resorted to ad hominem as opposed to squarely answering the questions you have proven you have lost those arguments. You are just a troll. It excites you to see another person working and dancing to your insane tune. f**k you You are the same disgusting c.unt of a person you always were. Nothing better to do than wind somebody up with endless games and stupidity Hmmm, can't find a standard of discovery that works for you huh?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 20:54:12 GMT
You are just a troll. It excites you to see another person working and dancing to your insane tune. f**k you You are the same disgusting c.unt of a person you always were. Nothing better to do than wind somebody up with endless games and stupidity Hmmm, can't find a standard of discovery that works for you huh? If Planck discovered photons why is he talking about radical ideas that are even so radical they are talking about a hypothesis of quanta of light similar to what Newton believed? We are not talking about Planck's views of light. We are talking about photons. What in Gods name are you talking about? ? How can you talk about photons without talking about light?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 20:56:50 GMT
Hmmm, can't find a standard of discovery that works for you huh? If Planck discovered photons why is he talking about radical ideas that are even so radical they are talking about a hypothesis of quanta of light similar to what Newton believed? As I have said repeatedly what a person says or thinks is outside my standard of discovery which I think is the overall standard of discovery. If you have a different standard of discovery that includes that you should define it and defend it.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 21:00:28 GMT
If Planck discovered photons why is he talking about radical ideas that are even so radical they are talking about a hypothesis of quanta of light similar to what Newton believed? As I have said repeatedly what a person says or thinks is outside my standard of discovery which I think is the overall standard of discovery. If you have a different standard of discovery that includes that you should define it and defend it. So the only allowable answer is planck discovered photons. You should have made it clearer at the beginning you were not interested in Plancks views or anybody but your own
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2016 21:42:18 GMT
As I have said repeatedly what a person says or thinks is outside my standard of discovery which I think is the overall standard of discovery. If you have a different standard of discovery that includes that you should define it and defend it. So the only allowable answer is planck discovered photons. You should have made it clearer at the beginning you were not interested in Plancks views or anybody but your own Quite to the contrary. Semantics is something I enjoy and majored in for 3 years while in college. Discovery is a word with meaning. I am merely holding to its simplest meaning that I perceive to be the standard by which discovery is measured. So far all I have seen is you producing comments of Planck. The opinions of nobody matters. What matters is if Planck met the common standard implied by the meaning of the word discovery. I have not ever even heard of a different standard. You though have spent quite a few posts trying to introduce what people think about light as evidence that Planck did not discover photons. You have artificially connected the thing Photons to the theory of light. But the common way of thinking about it that I am aware of is light is a stream of photons. So a photon is not analogous to light, it is instead a component of light. So what Planck thought of light is irrelevant. But photons are analogous to what Planck is widely recognized for discovering, namely energy quanta. So understand what I am interested in this conversation is the common and non-arbitrary standard for discovery which I think can be used to measure if Planck discovered photons. As I see it and I have provided several analogies like Christopher Columbus to test whether your objections to Planck being the discoverer of photons is supportable by the standard of discovery. I think not. But if you wish to contend otherwise you need to define a standard for discovery that is objective, not subjective, is universally applied and not arbitrarily applied and has been commonly used in ascribing discovery through out history to discoverers. You feel up to that? If so go for it. If not then just continue with the ad hominems because I see it all that does is cement your ignorant argument in stone. And of course if you believe my definition is the only plausible one and that leads to the idea of it being implausible that Planck did not discover photons. . . .heck Andrew you should recognize it. If you don't then you need to state what you think the standard of discovery is and then we can examine it, not with Planck but with a long list of people who have been recognized as discovering things.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 25, 2016 4:12:21 GMT
So the only allowable answer is planck discovered photons. You should have made it clearer at the beginning you were not interested in Plancks views or anybody but your own Quite to the contrary. Semantics is something I enjoy and majored in for 3 years while in college. Discovery is a word with meaning. I am merely holding to its simplest meaning that I perceive to be the standard by which discovery is measured. So far all I have seen is you producing comments of Planck. The opinions of nobody matters. What matters is if Planck met the common standard implied by the meaning of the word discovery. I have not ever even heard of a different standard. You though have spent quite a few posts trying to introduce what people think about light as evidence that Planck did not discover photons. You have artificially connected the thing Photons to the theory of light. But the common way of thinking about it that I am aware of is light is a stream of photons. So a photon is not analogous to light, it is instead a component of light. So what Planck thought of light is irrelevant. But photons are analogous to what Planck is widely recognized for discovering, namely energy quanta. So understand what I am interested in this conversation is the common and non-arbitrary standard for discovery which I think can be used to measure if Planck discovered photons. As I see it and I have provided several analogies like Christopher Columbus to test whether your objections to Planck being the discoverer of photons is supportable by the standard of discovery. I think not. But if you wish to contend otherwise you need to define a standard for discovery that is objective, not subjective, is universally applied and not arbitrarily applied and has been commonly used in ascribing discovery through out history to discoverers. You feel up to that? If so go for it. If not then just continue with the ad hominems because I see it all that does is cement your ignorant argument in stone. And of course if you believe my definition is the only plausible one and that leads to the idea of it being implausible that Planck did not discover photons. . . .heck Andrew you should recognize it. If you don't then you need to state what you think the standard of discovery is and then we can examine it, not with Planck but with a long list of people who have been recognized as discovering things. I do now finally understand what you are now saying. However you began by saying: he was measuring something He was a great scientist and Einstein was just a theoretician You claimed the radicals were only talking about light in a vacuum as if that meant what they said was something minor. Einstein discovered nothing. So as your arguments were shown to be false, arguments you thought to maintain day after day, you have arrived at this discovery argument. And yet, at not one single time in all of this unpleasant conversation, have you ever made a single concession to the realities I have presented here. You actually told me I would have a good point if the radicals were not talking about light in a vacuum. Suggesting you were open to reason if you could be shown to be mistaken. No doubt folks if photons only existed in a vacuum then you would have a solid case against Planck. But that is not at all the case. But his objection to that is no good reason for rejecting his observations of photons in a lab. The oscillator argument is ridiculous. So I show you are mistaken and you are on to something else altogether where the comments of even Planck no longer matter for this conversation. You operate like a lawyer or politician. Any old cheap way to score points is fine. Exclude planck from the conversation? Sure! No problem. Wave your hands and it is done. JJ Thompson was talking about light quanta before 1900 so we can say also he was the discoverer. Newton has a good case also - obviously his conceptualisation involved energy quanta. Planck has no idea what he discovered other than it involved energy quanta and involved light and he got his result from an analysis of resonators and did not believe his analysis method could legitimately be applied to radiation travelling through space. There is also the unpleasant tasting aspect of Planck using statistical methods to get his result when you used shit for brains reasoning to prevent reality prevailing when talking about the green house effect because the 2nd law is a product of statistical probabilities. An honest person would recognise all of these things instead of what you have done, where you have conceded absolutely nothing. What you are doing is more than just semantics. You apply a win at any cost attitude where reality can go to hell. It is not how a mature person behaves. A mature person would have identified at the beginning the nature of your argument if it had existed in the beginning, because quite clearly I have had no idea what your argument has been all through this sorry saga other than it appeared to be your usual shit for brains reasoning where facts and reality can totally go to hell. Obviously Columbus did not discover America. There were people living there already and other Europeans had already been there. Did Planck discover photons? He discovered the radiation curve of light can be described mathematically when an energy quantum is part of the probabilities of the values of the resonators - something like that. He had no idea what he had discovered that had physical meaning. The others were telling him the energy quantum must have some physical meaning for light and he would not have any of it for decades. Your argument is not of semantics. You are just trying to wriggle out of a hole of your own making by any method possible. Look at this example of your typical stupidity: The issue of photons is pretty much done for anybody who thinks Einstein discovered them as he himself attributes it to Planck. Very clearly though Einstein extended it theoretically to light beams which are made up of the same stuff that Planck discovered. According to you on that date, photons need to be extended to light. That is a statement that makes no sense at all. It is just your usual shit for brains stupidity. Which then started pages and pages of me trying to reason with you, all through which you have conceded absolutely nothing. All you can do is lie and cheat to try and get a result. It is not normal behaviour but it is your typical behaviour. According to you, Planck discovered photons using statistical methods, but nobody can prove the greenhouse effect is simple physics in principle using statistical methods because you claimed the use of statistical methods invalidates the argument when in reality the use of statistics was only a trivial consequence of analysing the random nature of matter. All our conversations have the same flavour. You excrete a big fat turd and then concede nothing. Barycenters you butted in and tried to derail that conversation and did your best to take the heat away from Nautonniers stupidity. Latent heat you refused to concede your intial statement about rising temperature in september due to the ice freezing was silly. Then there were the stupid farmers comments. Green house gases, your stupid use of G and T and endless other demonstrations of stupidity. According to you, you have triumphed all through these debacles. According to you Planck was a great person because he was not ready to declare photons were real. In reality he had his hypothesis of quanta and the others had their hypothesis of quanta of light. Neither side is saying these things are real. Planck was totally against the hypothesis of quanta of light so the only way to keep up your deception is to prevent the thoughts of Planck from entering your argument.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 25, 2016 4:29:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 11:02:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 25, 2016 11:17:47 GMT
You must be REALLY old IceFisher.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 12:25:44 GMT
Quite to the contrary. Semantics is something I enjoy and majored in for 3 years while in college. Discovery is a word with meaning. I am merely holding to its simplest meaning that I perceive to be the standard by which discovery is measured. So far all I have seen is you producing comments of Planck. The opinions of nobody matters. What matters is if Planck met the common standard implied by the meaning of the word discovery. I have not ever even heard of a different standard. You though have spent quite a few posts trying to introduce what people think about light as evidence that Planck did not discover photons. You have artificially connected the thing Photons to the theory of light. But the common way of thinking about it that I am aware of is light is a stream of photons. So a photon is not analogous to light, it is instead a component of light. So what Planck thought of light is irrelevant. But photons are analogous to what Planck is widely recognized for discovering, namely energy quanta. So understand what I am interested in this conversation is the common and non-arbitrary standard for discovery which I think can be used to measure if Planck discovered photons. As I see it and I have provided several analogies like Christopher Columbus to test whether your objections to Planck being the discoverer of photons is supportable by the standard of discovery. I think not. But if you wish to contend otherwise you need to define a standard for discovery that is objective, not subjective, is universally applied and not arbitrarily applied and has been commonly used in ascribing discovery through out history to discoverers. You feel up to that? If so go for it. If not then just continue with the ad hominems because I see it all that does is cement your ignorant argument in stone. And of course if you believe my definition is the only plausible one and that leads to the idea of it being implausible that Planck did not discover photons. . . .heck Andrew you should recognize it. If you don't then you need to state what you think the standard of discovery is and then we can examine it, not with Planck but with a long list of people who have been recognized as discovering things. I do now finally understand what you are now saying. However you began by saying: he was measuring something He was a great scientist and Einstein was just a theoretician You claimed the radicals were only talking about light in a vacuum as if that meant what they said was something minor. Einstein discovered nothing. So as your arguments were shown to be false, arguments you thought to maintain day after day, you have arrived at this discovery argument. And yet, at not one single time in all of this unpleasant conversation, have you ever made a single concession to the realities I have presented here. You actually told me I would have a good point if the radicals were not talking about light in a vacuum. Suggesting you were open to reason if you could be shown to be mistaken. Well you covered a lot of territory so let me break this down a bit into perhaps several replies. If I get to them all. First let me say thanks for recognizing my argument to the extent you did. But lets explore it a little further. As to what Planck said after discovering photons mostly proved out to be unjustified concerns about the extent of his discovery. You seem to ascribe some kind of physical reality to the imaginations of people, perhaps there is, but it seems beyond the scope of this discussion. Your imagination has run wild on the chain of events. He was measuring stuff, its kind of a necessity of discovery as discovery requires an observation and an observation requires looking at something. I used the word measure because it was his University that was doing the measuring and he was analyzing the data from that measurement. I don't think I said specifically: "He was a great scientist and Einstein was just a theoretician". If I did it would imply something I did not mean to imply. They were both great scientists. Planck was a methodical conservative one operating from observations, Einstein was a visionary who imagined stuff before they had been observed. I think I categorized the difference being that Einstein not observing could not discover anything. . . .within my and the common definition of discovery. But you don't have to discover stuff to have contributed to discovery (which by the way is how the Nobel Committee worded it in their award to him also showing that the Nobel Committee is using the same definition I am using.) But it seems all this runs cross grain to you. You are a big believer it whatever your Daddies feed to you. Whether it be global warming or it be "little bullets flying through space in every which direction warming everything they strike". I don't know who came up with that analogy. It seems to me it was some cartoonist or some child's science book writer trying to describe the nature of a quantum beyond what we can really see. But that viewpoint of mine of yours is not new and neither is my argument for discovery. One is not an escape from another they operate as a whole and you think its ridiculous because for you the box you are in has opaque walls and you cannot differentiate from what has been discovered and what has not been discovered. Finally to the vacuum argument for why Planck did not discover photons. My argument is he measured or detected them out of the data of observations of black box emissions. thus he discovered them. He had reservations that he had detected the entire emission process but Christopher Columbus had the same reservations about having discovered a new land, when in fact he had (within the definition of discovery including recognition from documentation). Now if Planck's reservations had proven to be wise and he had not observed the entire emission process and it continued a physical morphing into something else that later came to be called photons then he would not be the discoverer of photons. But his reservations proved to be unwise and he had in fact thoroughly discovered what came to be called photons. But you want to add additional criteria like the little bullets flying through space, and not being the product of the resonators, and having morphed into something different than what Planck found. Sounds like to me you are more confused than anything holding that Plancks reservations were justified thus he was not the discoverer.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 12:27:09 GMT
You must be REALLY old IceFisher. Lets put this way, I try to avoid talking about birthdays. Gee Ratty you must be too!
|
|