Remember me
▼ Content

Angular Momentum



Page 3 of 5<12345>
20-08-2017 12:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
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.

Temperature, well thermal energy, is the aggrigate kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a body. The speed at which they are bouncing about.

I think that the stuff about the upper layers of the atmosphere being warmed by the green house effect is all about the comparitive difference between the previous temperature of that layer and now.

However, that has no bearing on any argument I will make because I don't know enought to discuss it.

If you don't know the difference between kinetic energy, thermal energy, momentum and temperature you should stay away from any of these discussions wher you just embarass yourself.
20-08-2017 16:17
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.

Temperature, well thermal energy, is the aggrigate kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a body. The speed at which they are bouncing about.

I think that the stuff about the upper layers of the atmosphere being warmed by the green house effect is all about the comparitive difference between the previous temperature of that layer and now.

However, that has no bearing on any argument I will make because I don't know enought to discuss it.

If you don't know the difference between kinetic energy, thermal energy, momentum and temperature you should stay away from any of these discussions wher you just embarass yourself.


Tim,
I`ll just have to consider that I spent a lot more time studying physics than people like you, Wake or ITN.
It doesn't seem to bother you 3 that scientists have linked CO2 to stratospheric ozone recovery without knowing or having any idea why. Nothing in the current understanding of physics allows for it. Yet scientists states that CO2 and stratospheric ozone recovery go hand in hand.
I know enough about physics to consider why. And how I found that statement in the IPCC report is because I was already pursuing an experiment to demonstrate it.
And what you 3 are are armchair quarterbacks. There is what you would do if you were in control and the action you 3 would take is doing nothing because then you`d look smarter.
20-08-2017 16:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@Wake,
You are very much like the guy I know in the other forum. He was a cook in the Coat Gaurd. He said because he knew how to make coffee that he knew how to quantify things for research purposes. I think you're the same way.
And what you and you're 2 friends miss about energy is that an ice cube has kinetic energy but no linear velocity, why it is ice. It's velocity is all angular.
But as it's kinetic energy increases ice turns to liquid. This is is because it's angular momentum has decreased while it's linear momentum has increased. Matter can have both linear and angular momentum.
And in reality with an ice cube, as it's kinetic energy increases it develops linear momentum.
And to consider this further we would need to consider how the states the elements in a molecule possess such as are they in a ground state or N-1, N-2 etc. And I'm sure you know what I"m talking about.
But the easiest way for you to consider how linear and angular momentum work is just to consider ice and KISS, no linear momentum no water. It will always have angular momentum because it will have spin. That's why it has a Rest Mass. This is what it's atomic mass or weight is based on,. Remember when you asked about photons having mass? They are considered to be massless because they have no Rest Mass even though Einstein said that e=mc^2.

And Wake, I guess what you 3 are showing is why if my experiment is successful is why it will matter. It most likely will change how Atmospheric Chemistry is viewed.
Edited on 20-08-2017 16:54
20-08-2017 18:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ 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.

Temperature, well thermal energy, is the aggrigate kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a body. The speed at which they are bouncing about.

I think that the stuff about the upper layers of the atmosphere being warmed by the green house effect is all about the comparitive difference between the previous temperature of that layer and now.

However, that has no bearing on any argument I will make because I don't know enought to discuss it.

If you don't know the difference between kinetic energy, thermal energy, momentum and temperature you should stay away from any of these discussions wher you just embarass yourself.


Tim,
I`ll just have to consider that I spent a lot more time studying physics than people like you, Wake or ITN.
It doesn't seem to bother you 3 that scientists have linked CO2 to stratospheric ozone recovery without knowing or having any idea why. Nothing in the current understanding of physics allows for it. Yet scientists states that CO2 and stratospheric ozone recovery go hand in hand.
I know enough about physics to consider why. And how I found that statement in the IPCC report is because I was already pursuing an experiment to demonstrate it.
And what you 3 are are armchair quarterbacks. There is what you would do if you were in control and the action you 3 would take is doing nothing because then you`d look smarter.


What is quite obvious that any time you've spent studying physics is totally wasted. You don't have the basic understanding of physics of a plumber and that really should have made you pause to think. But of course it didn't.

Any idiot could have looked it up to discover: "Carbon dioxide has no direct effect on ozone, unlike CFCs and HFCs. Higher levels of carbon dioxide, however, do have an indirect effect on the ozone layer in the stratosphere. ... But near the poles and in the upper stratosphere, CO2 is increasing the amount of ozone by preventing nitrogen oxide from breaking it down."

But you're too busy being cyber-bullied to bother looking it up.
20-08-2017 20:08
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ 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.

Temperature, well thermal energy, is the aggrigate kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a body. The speed at which they are bouncing about.

I think that the stuff about the upper layers of the atmosphere being warmed by the green house effect is all about the comparitive difference between the previous temperature of that layer and now.

However, that has no bearing on any argument I will make because I don't know enought to discuss it.

If you don't know the difference between kinetic energy, thermal energy, momentum and temperature you should stay away from any of these discussions wher you just embarass yourself.


Tim,
I`ll just have to consider that I spent a lot more time studying physics than people like you, Wake or ITN.
It doesn't seem to bother you 3 that scientists have linked CO2 to stratospheric ozone recovery without knowing or having any idea why. Nothing in the current understanding of physics allows for it. Yet scientists states that CO2 and stratospheric ozone recovery go hand in hand.
I know enough about physics to consider why. And how I found that statement in the IPCC report is because I was already pursuing an experiment to demonstrate it.
And what you 3 are are armchair quarterbacks. There is what you would do if you were in control and the action you 3 would take is doing nothing because then you`d look smarter.


What is quite obvious that any time you've spent studying physics is totally wasted. You don't have the basic understanding of physics of a plumber and that really should have made you pause to think. But of course it didn't.

Any idiot could have looked it up to discover: "Carbon dioxide has no direct effect on ozone, unlike CFCs and HFCs. Higher levels of carbon dioxide, however, do have an indirect effect on the ozone layer in the stratosphere. ... But near the poles and in the upper stratosphere, CO2 is increasing the amount of ozone by preventing nitrogen oxide from breaking it down."

But you're too busy being cyber-bullied to bother looking it up.


About half way down it states that record levels of CO2 and CH4 have prevented further depletion of the ozone layer.
This is why you bully me. My experiment would show how CO2 supports the Chapman cycle. We`ve already discussed this, again, why you're bullying me. I have something you want.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
20-08-2017 21:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
About half way down it states that record levels of CO2 and CH4 have prevented further depletion of the ozone layer.
This is why you bully me. My experiment would show how CO2 supports the Chapman cycle. We`ve already discussed this, again, why you're bullying me. I have something you want.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


When you have an experiment then by all means give us the results. But you've been talking about "your experiment" for over a year and it's point has changed almost every time you've mentioned it.

You're learning as you go? Fine, but don't tell us about things that you've never done and hope to prove when they are neither logical or break basic laws of physics and chemistry.
20-08-2017 22:14
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
About half way down it states that record levels of CO2 and CH4 have prevented further depletion of the ozone layer.
This is why you bully me. My experiment would show how CO2 supports the Chapman cycle. We`ve already discussed this, again, why you're bullying me. I have something you want.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


When you have an experiment then by all means give us the results. But you've been talking about "your experiment" for over a year and it's point has changed almost every time you've mentioned it.

You're learning as you go? Fine, but don't tell us about things that you've never done and hope to prove when they are neither logical or break basic laws of physics and chemistry.


Wake,
You're not the moderator. Also when you posted that you don't want me to commit suicide implies that you will never stop cyber bullying me.
I have noticed that you did not comment on what scientists with the IPCC says happens, CO2 is associated with ozone recovery in the stratosphere. You said that no such link exists. And when I show it does you just come up with more crap.
Edited on 20-08-2017 22:20
20-08-2017 22:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
About half way down it states that record levels of CO2 and CH4 have prevented further depletion of the ozone layer.
This is why you bully me. My experiment would show how CO2 supports the Chapman cycle. We`ve already discussed this, again, why you're bullying me. I have something you want.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


When you have an experiment then by all means give us the results. But you've been talking about "your experiment" for over a year and it's point has changed almost every time you've mentioned it.

You're learning as you go? Fine, but don't tell us about things that you've never done and hope to prove when they are neither logical or break basic laws of physics and chemistry.


Wake,
You're not the moderator. Also when you posted that you don't want me to commit suicide implies that you will never stop cyber bullying me.
I have noticed that you did not comment on what scientists with the IPCC says happens, CO2 is associated with ozone recovery in the stratosphere. You said that no such link exists. And when I show it does you just come up with more crap.


If this is what you call bullying I'd hate to see you in the real world which you have so clearly been protected from.

I don't care about anything the IPCC says because they are total liars. They have been proven to be so. I have quoted the effects of CO2 on ozone and indeed if there is any effect at all (CO2 is very rare at ozone layer altitude) it is positive and not negative. But you haven't even grasped that.

I am not moderating anything and you have been telling us about "your experiment" for a year. Every time you talk about it it is something different. So why don't you describe your "experiment" in detail and then when you intend to perform this experiment and then THE RESULTS.

Your asinine guessing at what results might be is exactly why you aren't and never will be a scientist but nothing more than your typical snowflake.
21-08-2017 00:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
You are a cyber bully in my opinion. The way you`ve gone after Greenman
s also bullying.
That's all you really know, isn't it ?
Edited on 21-08-2017 00:39
21-08-2017 16:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
You are a cyber bully in my opinion. The way you`ve gone after Greenman
s also bullying.
That's all you really know, isn't it ?


And you and Greenman are both little pantywaists that are frightened to death that you might not be nearly as smart as you consider yourselves. You've both spouted the most absurd things that no one in their right mind would even think let alone write.
21-08-2017 17:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
You are a cyber bully in my opinion. The way you`ve gone after Greenman
s also bullying.
That's all you really know, isn't it ?


And you and Greenman are both little pantywaists that are frightened to death that you might not be nearly as smart as you consider yourselves. You've both spouted the most absurd things that no one in their right mind would even think let alone write.


Wake,
I am much smarter than you think. My mother was just like you. About the last thing she said to me before she passed away was "I ruined your life, didn't I ?".
I also have 2 brothers like you. I will not associate with them either. Other countries find American politics funny in a comical way because we elect the most aggressive candidates. Anymore I think the U.S. is very much like Rome before it fell. It was spoiled by it's success and couldn't see any of it's problems. it fell from within.
To give you an idea, about every aquifer west of the Mississippi is being depleted. That represents about 40% of U.S. agricultural production. This means that the immediate threat that should be dealt with is not climate change but is where the U.S. will get water for agricultural uses from ?
Will the U.S. drain the Great lakes the way Russia depleted the Aral Sea ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
As it turns out besides the experiment that I am pursuing in atmospheric chemistry I also have some experiments in sea water desalination that I want to try. And as you say America is all for attacking someone who is trying to do something. This is where I'll probably need to move to a country like Australia where they might not oppose working towards understanding and resolving problems. And you are right Wake, you are America and what it stands for.

Wake,
I am going to quit posting in here. If I didn't have my medical problems I'd be doing other things. I might as well work at them as I can. Then I'll be able to do my experiment and then walk away from it.
The part I like about this is that I want a scientist that is an immigrant to take it over. He also knows that my father was an immigrant and that it might take such people to advance science. You won't understand this part but you need to protect your territory the same way a dog will.
Edited on 21-08-2017 17:52
21-08-2017 18:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote: I am going to quit posting in here.


So long and don't write.
21-08-2017 20:43
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: I am going to quit posting in here.


So long and don't write.


Okay Mom, whatever you say !!!

Edited on 21-08-2017 20:46
22-08-2017 18:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
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).


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2017 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
James_ 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.

Temperature, well thermal energy, is the aggrigate kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a body. The speed at which they are bouncing about.

I think that the stuff about the upper layers of the atmosphere being warmed by the green house effect is all about the comparitive difference between the previous temperature of that layer and now.

However, that has no bearing on any argument I will make because I don't know enought to discuss it.

If you don't know the difference between kinetic energy, thermal energy, momentum and temperature you should stay away from any of these discussions wher you just embarass yourself.


Tim,
I`ll just have to consider that I spent a lot more time studying physics than people like you, Wake or ITN.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't seem to have learned anything!
James_ wrote:
It doesn't seem to bother you 3 that scientists have linked CO2 to stratospheric ozone recovery without knowing or having any idea why.

Science isn't scientists, fortunately. I have a pretty good idea why they made this statement. Money.
James_ wrote:
Nothing in the current understanding of physics allows for it.

That's exactly right!
James_ wrote:
Yet scientists states that CO2 and stratospheric ozone recovery go hand in hand.

Scientists make all kinds of stupid claims. They are people. They have religious beliefs and dishonesty just like any other people.

Science isn't scientists.
James_ wrote:
I know enough about physics to consider why.

You know zip about physics. You are just a follower of a few guys that went out and made a crazy ass statement to get fame (and hopefully money).
James_ wrote:
And how I found that statement in the IPCC report is because I was already pursuing an experiment to demonstrate it.

Then go demonstrate it. Remember the requirement of falsifiability in any new theory of science.
James_ wrote:
And what you 3 are are armchair quarterbacks.

Considering I use science in my business on a regular basis, I'll just take that as yet another typical insult spewed by the illiterate.
James_ wrote:
There is what you would do if you were in control and the action you 3 would take is doing nothing because then you`d look smarter.

Nothing needs to be done. Don't panic.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2017 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
James_ wrote:
@Wake,
You are very much like the guy I know in the other forum. He was a cook in the Coat Gaurd. He said because he knew how to make coffee that he knew how to quantify things for research purposes. I think you're the same way.
And what you and you're 2 friends miss about energy is that an ice cube has kinetic energy but no linear velocity, why it is ice. It's velocity is all angular.

So how do you explain a comet, the polar ice, the ice in your refrigerator, or a snowflake falling from the sky?
James_ wrote:
But as it's kinetic energy increases ice turns to liquid.

No. Comets move fast (compared to our Sun), snowflakes move slowly (compared to someone standing still in calm wind), or fast (compared to someone skiing down a hill or someone standing in a blizzard). Glaciers move slowly (compared to you). The ice in your fridge is moving at the speed of the refrigerator.
James_ wrote:
This is is because it's angular momentum has decreased while it's linear momentum has increased.

No.
James_ wrote:
Matter can have both linear and angular momentum.

Yes. You can throw an ice cube or you can spin it.
James_ wrote:
And in reality with an ice cube, as it's kinetic energy increases it develops linear momentum.

Yes. linear speed motion is one form of kinetic energy.
James_ wrote:
And to consider this further we would need to consider how the states the elements in a molecule possess such as are they in a ground state or N-1, N-2 etc.

Not really. Just needless detail.
James_ wrote:
And I'm sure you know what I"m talking about.

I'm sure I know you don't know what you're talking about.
James_ wrote:
But the easiest way for you to consider how linear and angular momentum work is just to consider ice and KISS, no linear momentum no water.

Oceans move at zero mph compared to you on the beach. They also move at 1000 mph at the equator as the Earth spins. They also move at 70000mph because the Earth orbits the Sun. They also move at 450000 because the Sun and the Earth are orbiting the center of our galaxy.

The ocean is still water.

James_ wrote:
It will always have angular momentum because it will have spin.

The ocean does not spin. The water in it is in motion, but it contains many little eddies and currents in it...some linear, some rotational.
James_ wrote:
That's why it has a Rest Mass.
This is what it's atomic mass or weight is based on,.

That is not why it has a rest mass.
James_ wrote:
Remember when you asked about photons having mass?

Photons do have mass. Even Einstein said so. The newspapers typically misquote him on this.
James_ wrote:
They are considered to be massless because they have no Rest Mass even though Einstein said that e=mc^2.

Ah...another one that quotes this equation without understand a thing about what the whole equation is, or what its terms mean.
James_ wrote:
And Wake, I guess what you 3 are showing is why if my experiment is successful is why it will matter. It most likely will change how Atmospheric Chemistry is viewed.

Go conduct your experiment. Remember the requirement of falsifiability for any new theory of science.


The Parrot Killer
22-08-2017 21:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
James_ 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.

Temperature, well thermal energy, is the aggrigate kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a body. The speed at which they are bouncing about.

I think that the stuff about the upper layers of the atmosphere being warmed by the green house effect is all about the comparitive difference between the previous temperature of that layer and now.

However, that has no bearing on any argument I will make because I don't know enought to discuss it.

If you don't know the difference between kinetic energy, thermal energy, momentum and temperature you should stay away from any of these discussions wher you just embarass yourself.


Tim,
I`ll just have to consider that I spent a lot more time studying physics than people like you, Wake or ITN.
It doesn't seem to bother you 3 that scientists have linked CO2 to stratospheric ozone recovery without knowing or having any idea why. Nothing in the current understanding of physics allows for it. Yet scientists states that CO2 and stratospheric ozone recovery go hand in hand.
I know enough about physics to consider why. And how I found that statement in the IPCC report is because I was already pursuing an experiment to demonstrate it.
And what you 3 are are armchair quarterbacks. There is what you would do if you were in control and the action you 3 would take is doing nothing because then you`d look smarter.


If you think angular momentum is the same as energy you have no clue as to physics no matter how long you have spent studying it.

If you think that then you have never passed any phsics test.
22-08-2017 21:49
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).


Momentum is definately not energy.

Kinetic energy is a form of energy.

The heat energy opf a body can be expressed as it's total internal kinetic energy. That would be;

Heat energy = 1/2 m average of (v(for each particle) - v(of whole body))*2.

That is the knietic energy of each particle within the body with respect to the velocity of the whole body.

If you have a hammer at 0 degrees K (I know, impossible but) which is traveling along at 100 m/s then it has zero thermal energy and an momentum of 100 times it's mass.
22-08-2017 21:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ 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.

Temperature, well thermal energy, is the aggrigate kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules in a body. The speed at which they are bouncing about.

I think that the stuff about the upper layers of the atmosphere being warmed by the green house effect is all about the comparitive difference between the previous temperature of that layer and now.

However, that has no bearing on any argument I will make because I don't know enought to discuss it.

If you don't know the difference between kinetic energy, thermal energy, momentum and temperature you should stay away from any of these discussions wher you just embarass yourself.


Tim,
I`ll just have to consider that I spent a lot more time studying physics than people like you, Wake or ITN.
It doesn't seem to bother you 3 that scientists have linked CO2 to stratospheric ozone recovery without knowing or having any idea why. Nothing in the current understanding of physics allows for it. Yet scientists states that CO2 and stratospheric ozone recovery go hand in hand.
I know enough about physics to consider why. And how I found that statement in the IPCC report is because I was already pursuing an experiment to demonstrate it.
And what you 3 are are armchair quarterbacks. There is what you would do if you were in control and the action you 3 would take is doing nothing because then you`d look smarter.


If you think angular momentum is the same as energy you have no clue as to physics no matter how long you have spent studying it.

If you think that then you have never passed any phsics test.


Tim,
The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you ;-)
23-08-2017 00:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.
23-08-2017 01:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.
23-08-2017 02:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.


What in the hell are you talking about now? I suggest you look back to page one and your statement there. And then tell us how it has anything at all with this simple and meaningless "examples" you just wrote as if they had some sort of dark meaning.
23-08-2017 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
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).


Momentum is definately not energy.

Kinetic energy is a form of energy.

The heat energy opf a body can be expressed as it's total internal kinetic energy. That would be;

Heat energy = 1/2 m average of (v(for each particle) - v(of whole body))*2.

That is the knietic energy of each particle within the body with respect to the velocity of the whole body.

If you have a hammer at 0 degrees K (I know, impossible but) which is traveling along at 100 m/s then it has zero thermal energy and an momentum of 100 times it's mass.


So a high speed head-on automobile collision has nothing to do with momentum eh? What killed the drivers? Lack of energy?


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2017 03:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.


What in the hell are you talking about now? I suggest you look back to page one and your statement there. And then tell us how it has anything at all with this simple and meaningless "examples" you just wrote as if they had some sort of dark meaning.


That's your problem Wake. All you have is stupid B.S. I like the "dark meaning", makes it seem like something sinister is going on.
Still, you are a waste of time.
23-08-2017 03:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-08-2017 03:15
23-08-2017 03:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.


I see you're changing the subject as well. It's well known that when photons collide with something that they become refracted. It's starting to look like you guys don't even know basic physics. This is sad. It really, truly is.
23-08-2017 04:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.


I see you're changing the subject as well.

Not at all.
James_ wrote:
It's well known that when photons collide with something that they become refracted.

When a photon hits something it may be reflected, refracted, or absorbed. In the case of absorption, the photon is destroyed.
James_ wrote:
It's starting to look like you guys don't even know basic physics.

Go put your glasses on. Your retinas don't seem to be responding.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2017 04:59
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.


I see you're changing the subject as well.

Not at all.
James_ wrote:
It's well known that when photons collide with something that they become refracted.

When a photon hits something it may be reflected, refracted, or absorbed. In the case of absorption, the photon is destroyed.
James_ wrote:
It's starting to look like you guys don't even know basic physics.

Go put your glasses on. Your retinas don't seem to be responding.


ITN,
With the 3 of you, your insults have become a joke. I don't feel insulted. As far as physics goes I do believe that molecules/atmospheric gases convert linear momentum to angular momentum when the barometric pressure drops.
Still, I do have my wood working project that I`ve been working on. Might need to spend more time on it?
23-08-2017 16:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.
23-08-2017 21:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

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


An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10−16 eV with high certainty.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

I think the mistake that you guys make is you keep wanting to try to prove you know something.
Edited on 23-08-2017 21:52
23-08-2017 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.


I see you're changing the subject as well.

Not at all.
James_ wrote:
It's well known that when photons collide with something that they become refracted.

When a photon hits something it may be reflected, refracted, or absorbed. In the case of absorption, the photon is destroyed.
James_ wrote:
It's starting to look like you guys don't even know basic physics.

Go put your glasses on. Your retinas don't seem to be responding.


ITN,
With the 3 of you, your insults have become a joke.

Not intended as an insult. It is intended to make you think about why your retinas even work.
James_ wrote:
I don't feel insulted.

Works for me.
James_ wrote:
As far as physics goes I do believe that molecules/atmospheric gases convert linear momentum to angular momentum when the barometric pressure drops.

Are you referring to the angular momentum of the instrument dial?
James_ wrote:
Still, I do have my wood working project that I`ve been working on.

I like wood projects. I am building an aircraft out of wood.
James_ wrote:
Might need to spend more time on it?

It would probably be more sensible for you than to try to make sense of momentum.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2017 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.


The Parrot Killer
23-08-2017 22:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:Tim, The last few posts are all you guys have, just trash talking. What you guys say is basically meaningless, it's not even insulting. It's like you guys are bored and spend all of your time thinking of something witty to say. You guys need to work on it some more, I think your audience is laughing at you and not with you.


The trouble is that you aren't even reading what is being written because you have long ago decided that you don't want to actually understand any science. You haven't even caught on to who is laughing at whom.


All you have Wake are insults. I`ll you 3 an example of angular momentum.
First I`ll state linear momentum.
As kinetic energy it is
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 30 km/s^2

As angular momentum
0.5 * 5.972 * 10^24 kg * 0.46 km/s^2

The Moment of Inertia would decrease the angular velocity of the Earth. Am using surface velocity.
If the Earth were to have a collision then someone of it`s angular momentum could be converted to linear momentum. The same applies to molecules in our atmosphere and is why linear momentum equates to heat. This is because the faster something moves the more collisions it has. Am really surprised you guys don't know this already.
Not my problem.

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.


"If the particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = mrestc2.
If we set the rest mass equal to zero (regardless of whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do), then E = pc.
In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them, we can certainly bring these "particles" of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass. That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, E = pc, and no harm has been done. Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter and "particles" of light. It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful."

Or in short - photons only have mass in the manner that energy and mass are interchangeable.

To give some figures:

1 MeV/c2 = 1.79 x 10-30 kg - that is 1 MILLION electron volts is equal to about 2 x 10-27 grams.

The upper limit on the mass of a photon is 3 x 10-27 ev.

Since this is so slight as to be non-existent the only mass or momentum a photon has is purely theoretical.

So don't tell me I can't understand the figures when I have actually worked on instruments trying to measure these things. While you've been trying to qualify on a 707 and think that the FAA isn't running commercial airports.
Edited on 23-08-2017 22:29
23-08-2017 22:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
23-08-2017 22:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
23-08-2017 23:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
24-08-2017 01:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?
24-08-2017 01:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
24-08-2017 01:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
24-08-2017 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-08-2017 02:09
Page 3 of 5<12345>





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