Angular Momentum

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wake wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

...deleted Holy Link...

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.

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).

James_ wrote:
Wake,
R = V/I. Volts into resistance, ohm`s law, ohms = volts/amps.

James_ wrote:
With a photon it might be similar. A charge moving through a field that has resistance shows field = photon/charge.

James_ wrote:
Inevitably all of physics from atomic to astrophysics functions on all the same principals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

James_ wrote:
If you look at the Earth and the Moon, similar to a hydrogen atom, 1 proton and 1 electron.

James_ wrote:
The Moon`s path around the Earth changes. No reason to think an electron`s orbit follows the same path every orbit.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

James_ wrote:
It makes discussing anything with you tiresome and not worth the time.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Wake wrote:
You are continually doing that.

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.

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.

Wake wrote:
Do not go around with this idea that it is the pure vibrational energy in an atom that is heat.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.