|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 13:53:55 GMT
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. I have addressed all this already and you continue to forget what I said. I said discovery was some kind of observation or processing of observational data, combined with sufficient documentation to gain recognition for the discovery. I recognize its not a perfect system. Scientists are aware of that so they conceal their proofs until they can get published. And to Planck's reservations, his reservations would only be applicable to invalidating his discovery of photons only if his reservations had been justified and the quantum of energy was not in fact what light was made up of and that different thing had become known as photons. There might be other argument, that are apparently not going to be made by you. Like an argument for a different definition of discovery or an argument about something fundamentally different than a quantum is what a photon is. Little bullets might qualify but thats mere speculation and an image designed for a child. And the problem with using it for children is they start believing more than what has been proven. Like little bullets flying everywhere warming everything. Its the little guy in energy transfer winning everytime. Its the meek shall inherit the earth. Its like a little anti-liberal philosophy universally applied in the context of liberalism, but I digress. No I did not say stuff was invalidated because of the use of statistics. I said the use of statistics always leaves open the possibility of you being wrong. And yes I believe that its possible that Planck's discovery could end up being proven to have been incorrect. Like Newtonian physics which breaks down at the atomic level, its possible that the quantum theory is just another approximation that happens to work out pretty well statistically and where statistics is elevated to such a high level its being considered the ultimate end. . . .and God does play dice. But as Born pointed out. Despite being so conservative Planck was so devoted to logical reasoning from facts that he did not flinch from announcing the most revolutionary idea which ever has shaken physics. The usefulness of his discovery has been so great his fame as a discoverer is cemented into the history of mankind, like Newton, no matter if it turns out to be only another statistical approximation. so no i dont reject stuff as you claim because of the use of statistics. I used statistics in my profession. I am keenly aware of its limitations. I reject statistics only when observations say I should. I view statistics largely in the same way I view computer models. 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. No I am not making a semantic argument. I gave you the opportunity to provide an alternative definition of discovery and you have not availed yourself of that opportunity. Thus I have believe you have accepted my definition and now are just whining about losing the argument. You post a bunch of nonsense about statistics me and the greenhouse theory above. We discussed this ad nauseum. We got down to the question as to whether the sun provides the addition warming of the surface because of a slowing of cooling or if it is the photons from the cold CO2 that warms the surface. You never took a position on the matter but instead continued to spur your double pony full speed ahead. Why? Near as I can tell the slowing of warming argument is primarily made up of little bullets flying everywhich way cold stuff warming warm stuff but not really its the sun. . . .maybe. You went on about "netting" of warm photons and cold photons so as to avoid the topic of low frequency cold photons morphing into high frequency warm photons. But what about the conservation of energy? Netting photons is one eliminating the other, but no they weren't eliminated they morphed into a hotter photon. . . .but wait!. . . .no its the sun that does it! You have avoided that issue since day one and refuse to take a position regarding the fate of all the photons, the cold ones, the warm ones, and the ones from the sun. If you can't imagine some problems with this mish mash hodge podge of photons with inspecific fates you are just in denial. . . .or stupid. As many top scientists have stated the ether/attractor theory could be real. The wave particle duality continues to manifest itself despite Planck's discovery or Einstein's theories. Something, probably a lot, remains to be discovered that will overturn some of these uncertainties, provided of course that God does not play dice with creation and annihilation. So yeah I am kind of enjoying you ripping your hair out over the frustration of folks poking at your favored theories. it makes for lively debate and should be informative regarding thought experiments
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 25, 2016 14:37:51 GMT
Finally to the vacuum argument for why Planck did not discover photons. You used the bogus vacuum argument to claim the radicals were not saying anything of importance.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 14:39:04 GMT
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. LOL! Thats hilarious! Photons are not an invention, they are a discovery. They needed to be extended to light logically the day God created them. Planck first spotted them by inferring their energy correctly. Einstein developed the theory of light. 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. Nope! Bad logic. Things created by statistics are not invalid. Statistics sometimes proposes invalid things, but not all the time. A statistical argument is largely meaningless until it is confirmed by observation or alternatively the statistical discovery proves useful. The greenhouse theory has neither been confirmed by observation not has it been shown to be useful. Unlike Planck's discovery that has not been confirmed by observation but has proven to be useful. All our conversations have the same flavour. You excrete a big fat turd and then concede nothing. Well what do you expect when you lead someone to the shiithouse? Barycenters you butted in and tried to derail that conversation and did your best to take the heat away from Nautonniers stupidity. I can't remember your position on barycenters. I think I was laughing too hard! 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. Triumphed might be overstating it. You still hold your crazy ideas. Using the 2nd law, the conservation energy and the inverse square distance laws and such are not proofs of the insanity of the greenhouse theory, but they are issues that need to be addressed by the advocates of the theory that have not been satisfactorily addressed. 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. Here you go again! Planck should not be denied his greatness for his discovery of energy quanta because he was not ready to say it was the only component of the generation of light rays. You are equating light rays and photons. Photons are but a piece of a ray of light that is made up of many photons. Einstein contributed to the discovery of light rays being made up of photons, but he did not discover photons. now if an argument could be made that photons had useful physical properties that were defined and recognized as prior to the coining of the term photon and was integral within the specific useful concept of a photon when the term was invented I would demote Planck to a co-discoverer. if such properties were discovered later I would leave Planck as the discoverer of photons and give the title of discoverer of the new property to the person who discovered it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 14:46:03 GMT
Finally to the vacuum argument for why Planck did not discover photons. You used the bogus vacuum argument to claim the radicals were not saying anything of importance. Wrong! they were saying something of importance, but saying nothing regarding the internal nature of a photon. they were talking about one of the things that photons do. a caveman discovered a clam shell, another may have figured out it cuts meat
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 14:51:21 GMT
"God does not play dice" I'm no math wiz but I would think in quantum theory/chaos theory the probability of dice exists further we could see the roll of the dice or not but that being in the game, time being relative, we might only see one roll (relatively speaking) or none at all. but i think that argument that god does not play dice is that with enough investigation we might find out the outcome of the roll each and every time meaning chaos and randomness only exists in our ignorance. Hacking away at ignorance, chaos, and randomness has been the enterprise of science since its beginnings. statistics has been a useful tool but in and of itself it may have no meaning. thats why its important to gain proof by observation or usefulness to validate the statistics.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2016 16:11:45 GMT
"God does not play dice" I'm no math wiz but I would think in quantum theory/chaos theory the probability of dice exists further we could see the roll of the dice or not but that being in the game, time being relative, we might only see one roll (relatively speaking) or none at all. but i think that argument that god does not play dice is that with enough investigation we might find out the outcome of the roll each and every time meaning chaos and randomness only exists in our ignorance. Hacking away at ignorance, chaos, and randomness has been the enterprise of science since its beginnings. statistics has been a useful tool but in and of itself it may have no meaning. thats why its important to gain proof by observation or usefulness to validate the statistics. 'Chaos' should not be confused with 'randomness'. Chaos is deterministic it is just that we do not know the variables and their interrelationships. Unless of course you are Laplace's Daemon: "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any given moment knew all of the forces that animate nature and the mutual positions of the beings that compose it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit the data to analysis, could condense into a single formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom; for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
— Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 25, 2016 17:56:00 GMT
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. LOL! Thats hilarious! Photons are not an invention, they are a discovery. They needed to be extended to light logically the day God created them. Planck first spotted them by inferring their energy correctly. Einstein developed the theory of light. Nobody was talking about inventions you f**king moron. If Planck discovered photons then he would have to have a theory of light where photons exist. It is stupidity of the highest order to say planck discovered photons/energy quanta in space and then somebody else was required to tell planck the energy quanta was a light quanta. 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. Only a scientific ignoramous is going to say planck discovered photons and then Einstein took the photons and extended it theoretically to light.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 18:17:11 GMT
LOL! Thats hilarious! Photons are not an invention, they are a discovery. They needed to be extended to light logically the day God created them. Planck first spotted them by inferring their energy correctly. Einstein developed the theory of light. Nobody was talking about inventions you f**king moron. If Planck discovered photons then he would have to have a theory of light where photons exist. It is stupidity of the highest order to say planck discovered photons/energy quanta in space and then somebody else was required to tell planck the energy quanta was a light quanta. 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. It is stupidity of the highest order to say planck discovered photons and then Einstein took the photons and extended it theoretically to light. Only a complete dork like you would make such a claim. So the extension of your definition of discovery is that for Columbus to have discovered America he would have written our constitution. Afraid not. Planck was trying to calculate the formula for the energy of light and happened upon the idea of quanta and the "Planck Constant" that describes it. He found he could accurately describe the energy of any light as a multiple of that constant times the frequency of the light. Today it seems a photon is another name for that quantum Planck discovered. As I said there are two avenues for you that could be effective and insults is not one of them. You can argue for a different definition for discovery or you can argue that the theoretical photons and all the imagery that goes with one, "little bullets flying everywhere" actually possesses a useful property besides its energy value that was known prior to the coining of the term. If you can do either convincingly with sufficient reference to establish a well accepted scientific principle I will back off. But insults are not going to get you there and are more indicative of your bankruptcy of argument.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 25, 2016 18:30:54 GMT
Nobody was talking about inventions you f**king moron. If Planck discovered photons then he would have to have a theory of light where photons exist. It is stupidity of the highest order to say planck discovered photons/energy quanta in space and then somebody else was required to tell planck the energy quanta was a light quanta. It is stupidity of the highest order to say planck discovered photons and then Einstein took the photons and extended it theoretically to light. Only a complete dork like you would make such a claim. So the extension of your definition of discovery is that for Columbus to have discovered America he would have written our constitution. Afraid not. Planck was trying to calculate the formula for the energy of light and happened upon the idea of quanta and the "Planck Constant" that describes it. He found he could accurately describe the energy of any light as a multiple of that constant times the frequency of the light. Today it seems a photon is another name for that quantum Planck discovered. As I said there are two avenues for you that could be effective and insults is not one of them. You can argue for a different definition for discovery or you can argue that the theoretical photons and all the imagery that goes with one, "little bullets flying everywhere" actually possesses a useful property besides its energy value that was known prior to the coining of the term. If you can do either convincingly with sufficient reference to establish a well accepted scientific principle I will back off. But insults are not going to get you there and are more indicative of your bankruptcy of argument. Icefisher, If Planck discovered photons nobody would be needed to tell him what a photon was you f**king moron
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 19:11:05 GMT
So the extension of your definition of discovery is that for Columbus to have discovered America he would have written our constitution. Afraid not. Planck was trying to calculate the formula for the energy of light and happened upon the idea of quanta and the "Planck Constant" that describes it. He found he could accurately describe the energy of any light as a multiple of that constant times the frequency of the light. Today it seems a photon is another name for that quantum Planck discovered. As I said there are two avenues for you that could be effective and insults is not one of them. You can argue for a different definition for discovery or you can argue that the theoretical photons and all the imagery that goes with one, "little bullets flying everywhere" actually possesses a useful property besides its energy value that was known prior to the coining of the term. If you can do either convincingly with sufficient reference to establish a well accepted scientific principle I will back off. But insults are not going to get you there and are more indicative of your bankruptcy of argument. Icefisher, If Planck discovered photons nobody would be needed to tell him what a photon was you f**king moron No one told Planck what a photon was. He told the world what they were. The only thing other people told him was where else he could find them.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 25, 2016 20:23:22 GMT
Icefisher, If Planck discovered photons nobody would be needed to tell him what a photon was you f**king moron No one told Planck what a photon was. He told the world what they were. The only thing other people told him was where else he could find them. You f**king idiot. If he told the world what they were nobody would have to show him where else he could find them.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2016 20:54:25 GMT
No one told Planck what a photon was. He told the world what they were. The only thing other people told him was where else he could find them. You f**k**g idiot. If he told the world what they were nobody would have to show him where else he could find them. Maybe with your dumass logic. If you find a tiger in a cage at the Bronx zoo doesn't mean you will be sure you will find them in Africa. Planck was working with a lab using a black box and sensitive gear. He knew he was looking at light emissions, obviously for anybody but a dumass, because he was trying to figure out how to estimate the energy of various levels of light. He discovered the value of that energy but simply was not prepared to extrapolate it to the light seen from the stars. He rightfully was suspicious of other processes like conduction influencing what was being observed. But he was very much aware he was onto its proper value even if he was not sure how it traveled. But the key here that you can't seem to wrap your mind around, travel is an action not a thing. The thing he found was a photon but he didn't know if that thing traveled or not. You are so inculcated by the idea of little bullets flying every which direction you define photons by that not by its substance which heretosofar as I know is only an undefined packet of energy of a known value. Thats a photon thats what he found. He has a Nobel Prize that acknowledges his discovery. Photons in fact may be more than what he discovered but it seems unlikely that they are different. You seem to think that the theory of light has to arise immediately upon encountering and defining what a photon is. As I said one caveman might find a clam shell, another might figure out it cuts meat, and a third might sharpen its edges, patent it, and sell it as a better meat cover. The question is who discovered the clam shell? Probably the only reason his Nobel Prize did not say photons rather than energy quanta is the word photon had not been invented in 1919. And one can point out that a "photon" is a word that implies a particle. Planck was aware that his finding suggested that but Planck was not one to jump all over a suggestion and believe it like you do. Einstein added greatly to that idea of it being a particle and initiated the idea it must have mass then. Planck was extremely well educated in what was known at the time so he was aware that what he had discovered was revolutionary to the wave idea of light that was popular at the time. He may not have thought of it as a particle, I don't know, I haven't studied it sufficiently. What I do read though is the only identifiable property of a photon is what Planck discovered. All the rest remains speculation and all that others did was take what Planck discovered and run with it and opened a lot of doors by doing that. I am afraid you might need to come up with something more intelligent and more insightful than you have. Its like your "little bullets flying every which way" idea you probably got off a cartoon of an object emitting light. Its an idea consistent with all we know but being consistent with all we know doesn't mean you can extrapolate from it or that its true. There are a lot of observably 100% consistent lies and juries have to deal with them constantly.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 25, 2016 22:03:36 GMT
You must be REALLY old IceFisher. Lets put this way, I try to avoid talking about birthdays. Gee Ratty you must be too! No need to get personal, Ice.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 26, 2016 3:39:00 GMT
Lets put this way, I try to avoid talking about birthdays. Gee Ratty you must be too! No need to get personal, Ice. I check in here occasionally to see if anything has changed ... Do you have an executive summary?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 26, 2016 3:55:40 GMT
No need to get personal, Ice. I check in here occasionally to see if anything has changed ... Do you have an executive summary? same script different show.
|
|