Remember me
▼ Content

Angular Momentum



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
24-08-2017 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


In fact you don't know that at all. It is a purely mathematical concept that has not shown any real connection with reality.

The pressure of light is real and is demonstrable.
Wake wrote:
Photons penetrate the atmosphere in numbers so large that the numbers become meaningless and the atmosphere remains unaffected by it since the subatomic particles that accompany this bombardment would be trillions and trillions of times larger.

Oh wait, you know all about it because yous be a scintis.

So...light doesn't affect the atmosphere at all, eh?

Why is the sky blue?

Where does our weather come from?

Why is there wind?

Why is the sunrise and the sunset red?

Why does a cloud 'burn off' during the day?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 02:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


In fact you don't know that at all. It is a purely mathematical concept that has not shown any real connection with reality. Photons penetrate the atmosphere in numbers so large that the numbers become meaningless and the atmosphere remains unaffected by it since the subatomic particles that accompany this bombardment would be trillions and trillions of times larger.

Oh wait, you know all about it because yous be a scintis.

It is you who seems to be detached from reality. Radiation pressure is a very real effect that can be measured relatively easily and must be taken into account when planning spacecraft trajectories. See Radiation pressure.


You dumbass - you can't even address what I said can you?


He DID address exactly what you said, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 02:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


In fact you don't know that at all. It is a purely mathematical concept that has not shown any real connection with reality. Photons penetrate the atmosphere in numbers so large that the numbers become meaningless and the atmosphere remains unaffected by it since the subatomic particles that accompany this bombardment would be trillions and trillions of times larger.

Oh wait, you know all about it because yous be a scintis.

It is you who seems to be detached from reality. Radiation pressure is a very real effect that can be measured relatively easily and must be taken into account when planning spacecraft trajectories. See Radiation pressure.


You dumbass - you can't even address what I said can you?

You said:

A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

I have just pointed out that this is not true. Photons have relativistic mass and hence momentum. That's why they can exert measurable pressure. Dumbass yourself.


I also gave specific number on the MAXIMUM mass a photon could have if it had mass. And that is too small to ever verify as actually existing. If you wish to play games with relativistic quantum theory you first have to prove it exists.


It exists. It is measurable. You just can't believe something that small can be measured, can you?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 02:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


In fact you don't know that at all. It is a purely mathematical concept that has not shown any real connection with reality. Photons penetrate the atmosphere in numbers so large that the numbers become meaningless and the atmosphere remains unaffected by it since the subatomic particles that accompany this bombardment would be trillions and trillions of times larger.

Oh wait, you know all about it because yous be a scintis.

It is you who seems to be detached from reality. Radiation pressure is a very real effect that can be measured relatively easily and must be taken into account when planning spacecraft trajectories. See Radiation pressure.


You dumbass - you can't even address what I said can you?

You said:

A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

I have just pointed out that this is not true. Photons have relativistic mass and hence momentum. That's why they can exert measurable pressure. Dumbass yourself.


I also gave specific number on the MAXIMUM mass a photon could have if it had mass. And that is too small to ever verify as actually existing. If you wish to play games with relativistic quantum theory you first have to prove it exists.

The number you gave is the upper limit of the rest mass of a photon, which is generally believed to actually be zero. And I'm not "playing games" you fool. The concept of relativistic mass was formulated by Einstein long ago and is proved by, for example, the deflection of light by gravity. And, as I've mentioned, it is not difficult to measure the radiation pressure exerted by the momentum of photons striking a surface.
Edited on 24-08-2017 02:15
24-08-2017 03:05
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@Surface Detail,
What could support photons as having mass is that the gravitational field of the Sun affects photons from a distant star in the same manner it causes precession in Mercury`s orbit.
Basically how could gravity effect something that has no mass?
24-08-2017 03:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
James_ wrote:
@Surface Detail,
What could support photons as having mass is that the gravitational field of the Sun affects photons from a distant star in the same manner it causes precession in Mercury`s orbit.
Basically how could gravity effect something that has no mass?

Precisely.
24-08-2017 03:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
You might find thiso interesting
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/162289-light-stopped-completely-for-a-minute-inside-a-crystal-the-basis-of-quantum-memory
24-08-2017 03:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


This is correct. A photon has no rest mass, because a photon is never at zero speed. It would cease to be a photon.


https://physics.stackexchange.com/.../can-a-photon-have-little-to-no-energy-and-or-spee...

"The speed of a photon does not affect its energy. It has zero mass, therefore zero kinetic energy. ... This doesn't affect its speed, and it doesn't really have anything to do with "relativistic" concerns--photons themselves are not necessarily present in relativity.Jun 30, 2015"
24-08-2017 03:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


This is correct. A photon has no rest mass, because a photon is never at zero speed. It would cease to be a photon.


https://physics.stackexchange.com/.../can-a-photon-have-little-to-no-energy-and-or-spee...

"The speed of a photon does not affect its energy. It has zero mass, therefore zero kinetic energy. ... This doesn't affect its speed, and it doesn't really have anything to do with "relativistic" concerns--photons themselves are not necessarily present in relativity.Jun 30, 2015"

Seriously? You're quoting an anonymous post on a public forum as though it were evidence? You have some serious gullibility issues, Wake, my friend. And your link doesn't work.
24-08-2017 04:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


This is correct. A photon has no rest mass, because a photon is never at zero speed. It would cease to be a photon.


https://physics.stackexchange.com/.../can-a-photon-have-little-to-no-energy-and-or-spee...

"The speed of a photon does not affect its energy. It has zero mass, therefore zero kinetic energy. ... This doesn't affect its speed, and it doesn't really have anything to do with "relativistic" concerns--photons themselves are not necessarily present in relativity.Jun 30, 2015"

Seriously? You're quoting an anonymous post on a public forum as though it were evidence? You have some serious gullibility issues, Wake, my friend. And your link doesn't work.


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

"A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[16] and is a stable particle. A photon has two possible polarization states.[17] In the momentum representation of the photon, which is preferred in quantum field theory, a photon is described by its wave vector, which determines its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation. A photon's wave vector may not be zero and can be represented either as a spatial 3-vector or as a (relativistic) four-vector"

I left the best part of you on some toilet paper last night.

All it would take is to consider relativity. Of course you think of that as your affair with your mother. But we're talking about science here.

Photons travel at the speed of light. No mass can be accelerated to the speed of light since because of relativity there would not be enough energy in the universe to do so.
Edited on 24-08-2017 04:37
24-08-2017 04:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


This is correct. A photon has no rest mass, because a photon is never at zero speed. It would cease to be a photon.


https://physics.stackexchange.com/.../can-a-photon-have-little-to-no-energy-and-or-spee...

"The speed of a photon does not affect its energy. It has zero mass, therefore zero kinetic energy. ... This doesn't affect its speed, and it doesn't really have anything to do with "relativistic" concerns--photons themselves are not necessarily present in relativity.Jun 30, 2015"

Seriously? You're quoting an anonymous post on a public forum as though it were evidence? You have some serious gullibility issues, Wake, my friend. And your link doesn't work.


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

"A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[16] and is a stable particle. A photon has two possible polarization states.[17] In the momentum representation of the photon, which is preferred in quantum field theory, a photon is described by its wave vector, which determines its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation. A photon's wave vector may not be zero and can be represented either as a spatial 3-vector or as a (relativistic) four-vector"

I left the best part of you on some toilet paper last night.

I suggest, moron, that you refer to Note 3. Yes, a photon has zero rest mass, as I already stated, but is does have a relativistic momentum.

Of **** it, why the hell am I trying to explain this to you? It is quite clear that you don't have the faintest grasp of this topic. Read a ****ing textbook for once in your life, you bloody idiot.
24-08-2017 06:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

What about a photon? It's only moving because it hasn't hit anything yet. it's moving damn fast too.

Once a photon hits something (and is absorbed as a result), the photon is destroyed.


A photon has no mass and hence hasn't any momentum.

A photon has a mass. You can even push something with it. Perhaps if you studied the equation you would understand why. Like most people, you are only giving part of the equation and you do not understand the terms that are used in it.

A bit of physics revision would do you both good.

Photons have zero rest mass, but they do have a relativistic mass proportional to their momentum. The momentum p of a photon is related to its wavelength lambda by de Broglie's relation:

lamdba = h / p where h is Planck's constant.

A photon therefore has a mass that is inversely proportional to its wavelength, hence a beam of light does indeed exert pressure on a surface that it strikes.


This is correct. A photon has no rest mass, because a photon is never at zero speed. It would cease to be a photon.


https://physics.stackexchange.com/.../can-a-photon-have-little-to-no-energy-and-or-spee...

"The speed of a photon does not affect its energy. It has zero mass, therefore zero kinetic energy. ... This doesn't affect its speed, and it doesn't really have anything to do with "relativistic" concerns--photons themselves are not necessarily present in relativity.Jun 30, 2015"

Seriously? You're quoting an anonymous post on a public forum as though it were evidence? You have some serious gullibility issues, Wake, my friend. And your link doesn't work.


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

"A photon is massless,[Note 3] has no electric charge,[16] and is a stable particle. A photon has two possible polarization states.[17] In the momentum representation of the photon, which is preferred in quantum field theory, a photon is described by its wave vector, which determines its wavelength λ and its direction of propagation. A photon's wave vector may not be zero and can be represented either as a spatial 3-vector or as a (relativistic) four-vector"

I left the best part of you on some toilet paper last night.

I suggest, moron, that you refer to Note 3. Yes, a photon has zero rest mass, as I already stated, but is does have a relativistic momentum.

Of **** it, why the hell am I trying to explain this to you? It is quite clear that you don't have the faintest grasp of this topic. Read a ****ing textbook for once in your life, you bloody idiot.


Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.

As I stated before, although some minority of physicists argue that an photon being energy must have mass there has never been anyone that has measured it and everyone that tried found that if an photon has mass it's below their measuring methods way of detecting it.

But since you know better than Einstein there's no arguing that photons go the speed of light despite having mass against the special theory of relativity.
24-08-2017 09:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Of **** it, why the hell am I trying to explain this to you? It is quite clear that you don't have the faintest grasp of this topic. Read a ****ing textbook for once in your life, you bloody idiot.


Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.

e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

Wake wrote:
As I stated before, although some minority of physicists argue that an photon being energy must have mass there has never been anyone that has measured it and everyone that tried found that if an photon has mass it's below their measuring methods way of detecting it.

Guess you're blind. Your retinas don't work.
Wake wrote:
But since you know better than Einstein there's no arguing that photons go the speed of light despite having mass against the special theory of relativity.

That IS Einstein's equation stupid.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 24-08-2017 09:32
24-08-2017 16:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Of **** it, why the hell am I trying to explain this to you? It is quite clear that you don't have the faintest grasp of this topic. Read a ****ing textbook for once in your life, you bloody idiot.


Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.

e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

Wake wrote:
As I stated before, although some minority of physicists argue that an photon being energy must have mass there has never been anyone that has measured it and everyone that tried found that if an photon has mass it's below their measuring methods way of detecting it.

Guess you're blind. Your retinas don't work.
Wake wrote:
But since you know better than Einstein there's no arguing that photons go the speed of light despite having mass against the special theory of relativity.

That IS Einstein's equation stupid.


And I guess you're too stupid to know that photons have zero rest mass. And so they have no mass other than relatavistic mass which is another thing beyond your grasp. As usual you print out your majic words without knowing what they mean.
24-08-2017 17:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.




Dark Matter. Maybe it's faster than light ? It does account for spiral galaxies.

https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

Think of it as a sonic boom. If a plane exceeds the speed of sound you won't hear the jet. What you`ll hear is the sound wave compressed into the sonic boom. Have been on a flight deck when a jet did a fly by to demonstrate to our families that were on board that you really can't hear a plane exceeding the speed of sound but instead hear bursts of sound.
Edited on 24-08-2017 17:52
24-08-2017 17:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.




Dark Matter. Maybe it's faster than light ? It does account for spiral galaxies.

https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

Think of it as a sonic boom. If a plane exceeds the speed of sound you won't hear the jet. What you`ll hear is the sound wave compressed into the sonic boom. Have been on a flight deck when a jet did a fly by to demonstrate to our families that were on board that you really can't hear a plane exceeding the speed of sound but instead hear bursts of sound.


So you are again pretending to invent answers to life, the universe and everything? You are growing more tiresome with each posting.

If you know nothing try saying nothing.
24-08-2017 19:14
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

So you are again pretending to invent answers to life, the universe and everything? You are growing more tiresome with each posting.

If you know nothing try saying nothing.


Typical of a cyber bully. You and ITN with your refusal to accept that scientists might know something gets old. While true they don't know everything they do know more than you.
This is not my invention or is it ?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9309004.pdf

A metal rich bulge, a metal poor stellar halo and a disk of
nearly solar composition. The spiral is embedded in a triaxial halo of dark matter.
Edited on 24-08-2017 19:42
24-08-2017 20:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.




Dark Matter. Maybe it's faster than light ? It does account for spiral galaxies.

https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

Think of it as a sonic boom. If a plane exceeds the speed of sound you won't hear the jet. What you`ll hear is the sound wave compressed into the sonic boom. Have been on a flight deck when a jet did a fly by to demonstrate to our families that were on board that you really can't hear a plane exceeding the speed of sound but instead hear bursts of sound.


So you are again pretending to invent answers to life, the universe and everything? You are growing more tiresome with each posting.

If you know nothing try saying nothing.


It is funny though, the simple answer that you asked for is something you can't consider.
24-08-2017 22:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
R = V/I. Volts into resistance, ohm`s law, ohms = volts/amps.
With a photon it might be similar. A charge moving through a field that has resistance shows field = photon/charge.
Inevitably all of physics from atomic to astrophysics functions on all the same principals.
24-08-2017 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Of **** it, why the hell am I trying to explain this to you? It is quite clear that you don't have the faintest grasp of this topic. Read a ****ing textbook for once in your life, you bloody idiot.


Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.

e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

Wake wrote:
As I stated before, although some minority of physicists argue that an photon being energy must have mass there has never been anyone that has measured it and everyone that tried found that if an photon has mass it's below their measuring methods way of detecting it.

Guess you're blind. Your retinas don't work.
Wake wrote:
But since you know better than Einstein there's no arguing that photons go the speed of light despite having mass against the special theory of relativity.

That IS Einstein's equation stupid.


And I guess you're too stupid to know that photons have zero rest mass. And so they have no mass other than relatavistic mass which is another thing beyond your grasp. As usual you print out your majic words without knowing what they mean.


?? You just denied your own argument and suddenly agreed with me.

Are you even capable of remember the context of your own argument?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Simply explain how a photon can go the speed of light if it has mass.




Dark Matter. Maybe it's faster than light ? It does account for spiral galaxies.

https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html

Think of it as a sonic boom. If a plane exceeds the speed of sound you won't hear the jet. What you`ll hear is the sound wave compressed into the sonic boom. Have been on a flight deck when a jet did a fly by to demonstrate to our families that were on board that you really can't hear a plane exceeding the speed of sound but instead hear bursts of sound.


Buzzword fallacy. Perhaps you should try to understand the words you use instead of trying to impress people by using them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

So you are again pretending to invent answers to life, the universe and everything? You are growing more tiresome with each posting.

If you know nothing try saying nothing.


Typical of a cyber bully.

Buzzword fallacy. You don't know what a cyber bully is.
James_ wrote:
You and ITN with your refusal to accept that scientists might know something gets old. While true they don't know everything they do know more than you.

False authority. You don't know what they know. You don't know what I know. You don't know what Wake knows.
James_ wrote:
This is not my invention or is it ?

...deleted Holy Link...

Basing your argument on some link you find on the internet is the sign of someone that doesn't think
James_ wrote:
A metal rich bulge, a metal poor stellar halo and a disk of
nearly solar composition. The spiral is embedded in a triaxial halo of dark matter.

More buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 23:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim


Momentum is not energy.

Kinetic energy is the energy a body has by vertue of it's motion.


Momentum is energy. It IS kinetic energy. All things are in motion. It's all relative, you know.

Kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy (the vibration of atoms and molecules).


Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it is not momentum. That both are due to the body's motion is separate.

Yes, not all kinetic energy is thermal energy. But thermal energy is at it base the kinetic energy of the atoms of the body using a velocity relative to the body it's self. How the thing is vibrating.
24-08-2017 23:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
R = V/I. Volts into resistance, ohm`s law, ohms = volts/amps.

Also the same equation for plumbing.
James_ wrote:
With a photon it might be similar. A charge moving through a field that has resistance shows field = photon/charge.

Fields don't have resistance. A moving charge through an electric field does not produce any heating.
James_ wrote:
Inevitably all of physics from atomic to astrophysics functions on all the same principals.

Buzzword fallacy again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 23:56
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim


Momentum is not energy.

Kinetic energy is the energy a body has by vertue of it's motion.


Momentum is energy. It IS kinetic energy. All things are in motion. It's all relative, you know.

Kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy (the vibration of atoms and molecules).


Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it is not momentum. That both are due to the body's motion is separate.

Yes, not all kinetic energy is thermal energy. But thermal energy is at it base the kinetic energy of the atoms of the body using a velocity relative to the body it's self. How the thing is vibrating.


And it vibrates because it is spinning. If you look at the Earth and the Moon, similar to a hydrogen atom, 1 proton and 1 electron.
The Moon`s path around the Earth changes. No reason to think an electron`s orbit follows the same path every orbit.
24-08-2017 23:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

So you are again pretending to invent answers to life, the universe and everything? You are growing more tiresome with each posting.

If you know nothing try saying nothing.


Typical of a cyber bully. You and ITN with your refusal to accept that scientists might know something gets old. While true they don't know everything they do know more than you.
This is not my invention or is it ?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9309004.pdf

A metal rich bulge, a metal poor stellar halo and a disk of
nearly solar composition. The spiral is embedded in a triaxial halo of dark matter.


Look - the law of relativity says that you cannot accelerate any mass to speed of light. The closer to the speed of light any matter approaches the more power it requires with the square law. Any matter at all would require more energy than there is in the universe to accelerate it to the maximum speed in this universe. Got that?

That means when you speak of photons having a "relative mass" you are speaking of the matter/energy it requires to accelerate a photon to the speed of light.

As I noted several times already - the amount of energy hence mass required to accelerate photon to the speed of light is so small that it is below our capacity to measure. The only thing we can say is that the amount we have been able to measure is 3 x 10^-37 ev.

While you're making ignorant statements I would suggest you actually take some courses in physics instead of listening to nut jobs like greeny and nightmare.
25-08-2017 00:11
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is not my invention or is it ?

...deleted Holy Link...

Basing your argument on some link you find on the internet is the sign of someone that doesn't think


More buzzwords.


ITN,
Your ignorance has gotten old. It's funny in a way. When someone tries to discuss something you don't know you go back to your "holy link" and not thinking.
Are you trying to make it look like your a teacher critiquing a student ? It makes discussing anything with you tiresome and not worth the time.
25-08-2017 00:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim


Momentum is not energy.

Kinetic energy is the energy a body has by vertue of it's motion.


Momentum is energy. It IS kinetic energy. All things are in motion. It's all relative, you know.

Kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy (the vibration of atoms and molecules).


Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it is not momentum. That both are due to the body's motion is separate.

Yes, not all kinetic energy is thermal energy. But thermal energy is at it base the kinetic energy of the atoms of the body using a velocity relative to the body it's self. How the thing is vibrating.


And it vibrates because it is spinning.

Spin is not vibration. It is not linear motion at all.
James_ wrote:
If you look at the Earth and the Moon, similar to a hydrogen atom, 1 proton and 1 electron.

No one uses the old Bohr model of the atom anymore (except World Book Encyclopedia).
James_ wrote:
The Moon`s path around the Earth changes. No reason to think an electron`s orbit follows the same path every orbit.

The electron doesn't orbit. It doesn't have a path you could even call an orbit. It has a probability of its position as it wanders around the proton that is highest about half an angstrom away (assuming a hydrogen atom in the ground state), but could be anywhere near the proton.

Today, the electron is said to be in an orbital, which refers to this probability of distance.

The Moon's orbit relative to the Earth does change. The eccentricity doesn't change, but the ellipse precesses around the Earth a bit on each orbit. The average distance also changes (very slightly). The Moon is very slowly moving outward, away from Earth. It is gaining momentum off of the Earth itself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 00:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

So you are again pretending to invent answers to life, the universe and everything? You are growing more tiresome with each posting.

If you know nothing try saying nothing.


Typical of a cyber bully. You and ITN with your refusal to accept that scientists might know something gets old. While true they don't know everything they do know more than you.
This is not my invention or is it ?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9309004.pdf

A metal rich bulge, a metal poor stellar halo and a disk of
nearly solar composition. The spiral is embedded in a triaxial halo of dark matter.


Look - the law of relativity says that you cannot accelerate any mass to speed of light.

No, it doesn't. It says you cannot accelerate anything that has a nonzero rest mass to the speed of light. Big difference.
Wake wrote:
The closer to the speed of light any matter approaches the more power it requires with the square law. Any matter at all would require more energy than there is in the universe to accelerate it to the maximum speed in this universe. Got that?

True, for something that has a nonzero rest mass.
Wake wrote:
That means when you speak of photons having a "relative mass" you are speaking of the matter/energy it requires to accelerate a photon to the speed of light.

Photons aren't accelerated to the speed of light. They ARE light. They ARE the speed of light.
Wake wrote:
As I noted several times already - the amount of energy hence mass required to accelerate photon to the speed of light is so small that it is below our capacity to measure. The only thing we can say is that the amount we have been able to measure is 3 x 10^-37 ev.

I don't think you know what this number means.
Wake wrote:
While you're making ignorant statements I would suggest you actually take some courses in physics instead of listening to nut jobs like greeny and nightmare.

May I recommend you actually learn what e=mc^2 actually means?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 00:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
This is not my invention or is it ?

...deleted Holy Link...

Basing your argument on some link you find on the internet is the sign of someone that doesn't think


More buzzwords.


ITN,
Your ignorance has gotten old. It's funny in a way. When someone tries to discuss something you don't know you go back to your "holy link" and not thinking.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that attempting to substitute Holy Links for thinking. Depending on the arguments of others blindly will never teach you how to critically judge an argument. It will never teach you how to construct your own argument.

There's just not a lot of point to debating someone that isn't here to defend their argument, or to debate every website some idiot finds on the internet.

James_ wrote:
Are you trying to make it look like your a teacher critiquing a student ?

No. I am trying to tell you that you are not thinking for yourself. I am also telling you that you depend on buzzwords for most of your statements.
James_ wrote:
It makes discussing anything with you tiresome and not worth the time.

Learn to think for yourself. Learn to construct your own arguments, not depend on the arguments of others to do your thinking for you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 00:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim


Momentum is not energy.

Kinetic energy is the energy a body has by vertue of it's motion.


Momentum is energy. It IS kinetic energy. All things are in motion. It's all relative, you know.

Kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy (the vibration of atoms and molecules).


Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it is not momentum. That both are due to the body's motion is separate.

Yes, not all kinetic energy is thermal energy. But thermal energy is at it base the kinetic energy of the atoms of the body using a velocity relative to the body it's self. How the thing is vibrating.


And it vibrates because it is spinning. If you look at the Earth and the Moon, similar to a hydrogen atom, 1 proton and 1 electron.
The Moon`s path around the Earth changes. No reason to think an electron`s orbit follows the same path every orbit.


Really jim - if you cannot try to explain yourself it is better to not post. Orbitals around a nucleus are not at all like the orbits of a moon around a planet. There is a difference between electro-dynamic balance and gravity.

Kenetic energy and momentum aren't related. Angular momentum isn't related to thermal energy.
25-08-2017 01:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim


Momentum is not energy.

Kinetic energy is the energy a body has by vertue of it's motion.


Momentum is energy. It IS kinetic energy. All things are in motion. It's all relative, you know.

Kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy (the vibration of atoms and molecules).


Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it is not momentum. That both are due to the body's motion is separate.

Yes, not all kinetic energy is thermal energy. But thermal energy is at it base the kinetic energy of the atoms of the body using a velocity relative to the body it's self. How the thing is vibrating.


And it vibrates because it is spinning. If you look at the Earth and the Moon, similar to a hydrogen atom, 1 proton and 1 electron.
The Moon`s path around the Earth changes. No reason to think an electron`s orbit follows the same path every orbit.


Really jim - if you cannot try to explain yourself it is better to not post. Orbitals around a nucleus are not at all like the orbits of a moon around a planet. There is a difference between electro-dynamic balance and gravity.

Kenetic energy and momentum aren't related. Angular momentum isn't related to thermal energy.


They are related according to the equation:

KE = (1/2)P^2 / m

Where: P is the momentum of a particle, and m is the mass.

Angular momentum is only one kind of momentum. Total momentum P is:

P = mL + mA

where: mL is linear momentum and mA is angular momentum. They are not the same thing. One is translational movement, the other is spin.

A vibrating particle does have linear momentum, but not any angular momentum (that's counted for in the next part anyway).

When considering only the kinetic energy of a translational movement of a molecule (in other words the kind you get from linear movement only), then the equation:

KE = 2/3 k T relates temperature to kinetic energy, and with it, the linear momentum of the particle.

What a thermometer sees can best be described as the average kinetic energy in mL particles smacking into the bulb of the thermometer. Angular momentum does not affect a thermometer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 25-08-2017 01:49
25-08-2017 02:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim


Momentum is not energy.

Kinetic energy is the energy a body has by vertue of it's motion.


Momentum is energy. It IS kinetic energy. All things are in motion. It's all relative, you know.

Kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy (the vibration of atoms and molecules).


Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it is not momentum. That both are due to the body's motion is separate.

Yes, not all kinetic energy is thermal energy. But thermal energy is at it base the kinetic energy of the atoms of the body using a velocity relative to the body it's self. How the thing is vibrating.


And it vibrates because it is spinning. If you look at the Earth and the Moon, similar to a hydrogen atom, 1 proton and 1 electron.
The Moon`s path around the Earth changes. No reason to think an electron`s orbit follows the same path every orbit.


Really jim - if you cannot try to explain yourself it is better to not post. Orbitals around a nucleus are not at all like the orbits of a moon around a planet. There is a difference between electro-dynamic balance and gravity.

Kenetic energy and momentum aren't related. Angular momentum isn't related to thermal energy.


They are related according to the equation:

KE = (1/2)P^2 / m

Where: P is the momentum of a particle, and m is the mass.

Angular momentum is only one kind of momentum. Total momentum P is:

P = mL + mA

where: mL is linear momentum and mA is angular momentum. They are not the same thing. One is translational movement, the other is spin.

A vibrating particle does have linear momentum, but not any angular momentum (that's counted for in the next part anyway).

When considering only the kinetic energy of a translational movement of a molecule (in other words the kind you get from linear movement only), then the equation:

KE = 2/3 k T relates temperature to kinetic energy, and with it, the linear momentum of the particle.

What a thermometer sees can best be described as the average kinetic energy in mL particles smacking into the bulb of the thermometer. Angular momentum does not affect a thermometer.


Is there some reason you should misrepresent what was said? You are continually doing that. You will take a simplified answer and proclaim it is incorrect because it was simplified for people who could not understand the complex answer.

You're purposely missing the point - the kinetic energy in a moving body was gained through the expenditure of energy to gain the speed/mass that is represented my momentum. To act as if momentum of and by itself represents kinetic energy is an incorrect representation.

Do not go around with this idea that it is the pure vibrational energy in an atom that is heat. As a matter of fact we don't know all of the effects of heat on matter.
25-08-2017 02:32
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.
Edited on 25-08-2017 02:40
25-08-2017 03:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Angular momentum is nothing at all to do with or similar in any way to heat.


Can you offer an explanation about how the troposphere is warmed by an area that is so cold ? I think that is necessary. Otherwise the troposphere being so warm violates the known laws of thermodynamics.
This is because heat would be flowing from cold to warm keeping the cold area cold and the warm area warm. Does thermodynamics even begin to allow for such a ludicrous thought ? It is widely accepted that it does.

To be more specific; The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium

What this means is that the tropopause should be warmer than the stratosphere while being colder than the troposphere. And we know that isn't happening. The Van Allen Radiation Belts can account for what appears to be a clear violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/thermodynamics-17/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-123/the-three-laws-of-thermodynamics-496-3601/

As to your comment; >> Angular momentum has nothing at all to do with or is similar in any way to heat <<

The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.

Energy being conserved as angular momentum does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. This is because it merely changes form. :-)


Jim


Momentum is not energy.

Kinetic energy is the energy a body has by vertue of it's motion.


Momentum is energy. It IS kinetic energy. All things are in motion. It's all relative, you know.

Kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy (the vibration of atoms and molecules).


Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it is not momentum. That both are due to the body's motion is separate.

Yes, not all kinetic energy is thermal energy. But thermal energy is at it base the kinetic energy of the atoms of the body using a velocity relative to the body it's self. How the thing is vibrating.


And it vibrates because it is spinning. If you look at the Earth and the Moon, similar to a hydrogen atom, 1 proton and 1 electron.
The Moon`s path around the Earth changes. No reason to think an electron`s orbit follows the same path every orbit.


Really jim - if you cannot try to explain yourself it is better to not post. Orbitals around a nucleus are not at all like the orbits of a moon around a planet. There is a difference between electro-dynamic balance and gravity.

Kenetic energy and momentum aren't related. Angular momentum isn't related to thermal energy.


They are related according to the equation:

KE = (1/2)P^2 / m

Where: P is the momentum of a particle, and m is the mass.

Angular momentum is only one kind of momentum. Total momentum P is:

P = mL + mA

where: mL is linear momentum and mA is angular momentum. They are not the same thing. One is translational movement, the other is spin.

A vibrating particle does have linear momentum, but not any angular momentum (that's counted for in the next part anyway).

When considering only the kinetic energy of a translational movement of a molecule (in other words the kind you get from linear movement only), then the equation:

KE = 2/3 k T relates temperature to kinetic energy, and with it, the linear momentum of the particle.

What a thermometer sees can best be described as the average kinetic energy in mL particles smacking into the bulb of the thermometer. Angular momentum does not affect a thermometer.


Is there some reason you should misrepresent what was said?

You said momentum is not related to kinetic energy. It is.
Wake wrote:
You are continually doing that.

Maybe you should be more careful what you say.
Wake wrote:
You will take a simplified answer and proclaim it is incorrect because it was simplified for people who could not understand the complex answer.

He actually has been spouting these equations also, but no understanding the limits of them.
Wake wrote:
You're purposely missing the point - the kinetic energy in a moving body was gained through the expenditure of energy to gain the speed/mass that is represented my momentum. To act as if momentum of and by itself represents kinetic energy is an incorrect representation.

Momentum of and by itself represents kinetic energy. See equations above for that relationship.
Wake wrote:
Do not go around with this idea that it is the pure vibrational energy in an atom that is heat.

It isn't.
Wake wrote:
As a matter of fact we don't know all of the effects of heat on matter.

Actually, we know quite a lot.

We know that you heat matter, its temperature increases.

We know that you can't heat anything without a source of energy.

We know that you can't heat something warmer than the source.

We know that the hotter a bit of matter is, the more translational kinetic energy it has.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 03:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13313)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.


Angular momentum is not used in calculating the kinetic energy that describes temperature.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 17:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.


Angular momentum is not used in calculating the kinetic energy that describes temperature.


I know this. With you and Wake, you can only discuss what we already know.
Wake claims no climate change is happening while you want to say I am a Good Parrot. As far as you go Parrot, you will say you have to accept what we know now. You can not expand on what we know but instead you must be limited by it.
25-08-2017 17:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

They are related according to the equation:

KE = (1/2)P^2 / m

Where: P is the momentum of a particle, and m is the mass.

Angular momentum is only one kind of momentum. Total momentum P is:

P = mL + mA where: mL is linear momentum and mA is angular momentum. They are not the same thing. One is translational movement, the other is spin.

A vibrating particle does have linear momentum, but not any angular momentum (that's counted for in the next part anyway).

When considering only the kinetic energy of a translational movement of a molecule (in other words the kind you get from linear movement only), then the equation:

KE = 2/3 k T relates temperature to kinetic energy, and with it, the linear momentum of the particle.

What a thermometer sees can best be described as the average kinetic energy in mL particles smacking into the bulb of the thermometer. Angular momentum does not affect a thermometer.


It's my opinion that when gases cool at night that mL can be conserved to some extent as mA. And that because heat is the result of collisions https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/138117/heat-generated-by-collision that the total kinetic energy mL + mA = m(L + A) actually matters. This would explain why during the day when the atmosphere has more background radiation that there are more collisions.
This is because more background radiation is available to be absorbed. This would allow stored energy to be released which would mean that atmospheric gases have become excited.

@ITN,
See, I am thinking for myself yet you might say I am not because I am taking the time to consider something.
Edited on 25-08-2017 17:51
25-08-2017 17:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
When you have 100`s of things in your post, not sure what point you`re trying to make. Are you trying to confuse everybody ?

I also remember you saying that you think I am ignorant and that I have to learn from you. Yet you rejected the opinion by scientists that dark matter exists while I don't.
I think where you get confused is when I calculate the kinetic energy in the angular momentum of something. Not my problem.


So which posting had 100's of things?

No, I didn't say you had to learn from me. If you don't like my explanations you could always take a class in physics.

I am not the one confused. You believe that angular momentum which has to do with objects deflected from a straight line such as orbits caused by gravity fields or orbitals caused by electro-dynamic attractions are somehow magic and cause physical reality to change to your desires.

I do not understand why you insist on reading something and suddenly making it the center of the universe simply because it is the first time you've encountered it. And then when corrected you want to cry and shout "BULLY" as if anyone that doesn't take your word for anything is an evil-doer.
25-08-2017 17:56
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

Actually, we know quite a lot.

We know that you heat matter, its temperature increases.

We know that you can't heat anything without a source of energy.

We know that you can't heat something warmer than the source.

We know that the hotter a bit of matter is, the more translational kinetic energy it has.


ITN,
When heat passes through the tropopause, the opposite of your statement is happening;
>> We know that you can't heat something warmer than the source. <<

This is why I believe that heat can be stored or conserved as angular momentum. Yet you will say I am wrong while you say the very cold tropopause is warming our atmosphere. Our atmosphere is proof that cold can warm a warmer area. And as anyone familiar with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics knows, energy can change form.
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate Angular Momentum:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact