| 05-03-2017 18:32 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Warmer temps and more food. I bet the caribou are in real trouble. I've always wanted to arrow one. Better get there before they're all gone.
I suppose there is a point to you posting this? Are you just childishly trying to upset people like a fourteen year old with ADHD?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-03-2017 18:39 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Are you just childishly trying to upset people like a fourteen year old with ADHD?
I'm so sorry. I didn't realize you were so young.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 05-03-2017 18:52 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Are you just childishly trying to upset people like a fourteen year old with ADHD?
I'm so sorry. I didn't realize you were so young.
You can't derive meaning from basic sentences ?
What I was clearly insinuating is that you are acting like an unpleasant teenager
and your response to that is at toddler level; "I know you are what am I?".
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-03-2017 18:55 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
I have no idea what Wake is talking about, thanks for looking into it and confirming it it seems he has no idea what people who are arguing with him are saying as well as his claimed sources. Perhaps if he could say what exact "credentials" that he keeps going on about are needed to interpret what he is saying I could attend a course or something.
Meanwhile the claim that you can't farm in Greenland or that trees will not grow are false http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326
"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk. "Potatoes have most benefited. Also, cabbage has been very successful."
Sten Erik Langstrup Pedersen, who runs an organic farm in a fjord near Nuuk, first grew potatoes in 1976. Now he can plant crops two weeks earlier in May and harvest three weeks later in October compared with more than a decade ago.
He grows 23 kinds of vegetables, compared with 15 a decade ago, including beans, peas, herbs and strawberries. He says he has sold some strawberries to top restaurants in Copenhagen.
The claim you can not farm in Greenland is false, and they are noticing changes due to a warmer climate.
Uhh, they are growing these crops in greenhouses. Are you purposely trying to misrepresent conditions or do you believe that the Vikings had greenhouses? |
| 05-03-2017 18:58 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
What I was clearly insinuating is that you are acting like an unpleasant teenager
and your response to that is at toddler level; "I know you are what am I?".
Thank you so much for the explanation. It was so informative, just like all the global warming stories I've read lately.
Since you are unable to decipher the point, because I apparently hid it too well, I'll be more clear.
The story you posted last week said the caribou are suffering because of global warming and lack of nutrients. The next story I read says there is abundance of food due to longer growing seasons.
Now which is it? Flood or drought?
Edited on 05-03-2017 19:00 |
|
| 05-03-2017 19:13 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
What I was clearly insinuating is that you are acting like an unpleasant teenager
and your response to that is at toddler level; "I know you are what am I?".
Thank you so much for the explanation. It was so informative, just like all the global warming stories I've read lately.
Since you are unable to decipher the point, because I apparently hid it too well, I'll be more clear.
The story you posted last week said the caribou are suffering because of global warming and lack of nutrients. The next story I read says there is abundance of food due to longer growing seasons.
Now which is it? Flood or drought?
From the link I posted;
Caribou come to the study site during the calving season, to graze on the rich plant life of the brief Arctic summer. The caribou set their migration calendar by day-length. But some of the plants prefer to respond to temperature, which means that by the time the caribou arrive, the plants have flourished and the pickings are not as nutritious. So fewer calves are born and more die.
I would have thought it was clear to anyone that can read English.
Now you said you read something somewhere that contradicts this, If you linked to it we could discuss it. but at the moment all you have done is posted your uninformed opinions.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-03-2017 19:28 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
I have no idea what Wake is talking about, thanks for looking into it and confirming it it seems he has no idea what people who are arguing with him are saying as well as his claimed sources. Perhaps if he could say what exact "credentials" that he keeps going on about are needed to interpret what he is saying I could attend a course or something.
Meanwhile the claim that you can't farm in Greenland or that trees will not grow are false http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326
"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk. "Potatoes have most benefited. Also, cabbage has been very successful."
Sten Erik Langstrup Pedersen, who runs an organic farm in a fjord near Nuuk, first grew potatoes in 1976. Now he can plant crops two weeks earlier in May and harvest three weeks later in October compared with more than a decade ago.
He grows 23 kinds of vegetables, compared with 15 a decade ago, including beans, peas, herbs and strawberries. He says he has sold some strawberries to top restaurants in Copenhagen.
The claim you can not farm in Greenland is false, and they are noticing changes due to a warmer climate.
Uhh, they are growing these crops in greenhouses. Are you purposely trying to misrepresent conditions or do you believe that the Vikings had greenhouses?
I suggest reading the article and not just skimming it before you formulate your flippant reply.
"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk. "Potatoes have most benefited. Also, cabbage has been very successful."
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-03-2017 19:34 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
https://www.learner.org/jnorth/search/CaribouNotes3.html
Q. What makes the Coastal Plain a good place for calving?
The full reason the herd returns each year traditional calving grounds is not fully understood. However, it is likely that they choose these areas because spring vegetation appears here first. These areas also offer better protection from predators and insects.
Q.How do winter snowstorms affect the caribou?
Believe it or not, caribou don't like deep snow. Caribou feed on lichens under the snow and tend to occupy areas with favorable snow conditions. Favorable areas for digging feeding craters have snow depths of less than 50-60 cm (20-24 in) and densities of less than 0.34 g/cm. Big snowstorms make it difficult to find food.
A little warmer seems to be quite a good thing for these animals. Your article claims fact that they set migration to amount of daylight. This article says it not fully understood. Bottom line, they go where the food is and is easiest to get at.
I assume we can agree that colder snowier? Is there more or less food with snow? Is food more or less accessible with more snow? How is warmer HURTING anything? How can you not grasp this?
Edited on 05-03-2017 19:35 |
| 05-03-2017 19:38 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
I have no idea what Wake is talking about, thanks for looking into it and confirming it it seems he has no idea what people who are arguing with him are saying as well as his claimed sources. Perhaps if he could say what exact "credentials" that he keeps going on about are needed to interpret what he is saying I could attend a course or something.
Meanwhile the claim that you can't farm in Greenland or that trees will not grow are false http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greenland-climate-agriculture-idUSBRE92P0EX20130326
"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk. "Potatoes have most benefited. Also, cabbage has been very successful."
Sten Erik Langstrup Pedersen, who runs an organic farm in a fjord near Nuuk, first grew potatoes in 1976. Now he can plant crops two weeks earlier in May and harvest three weeks later in October compared with more than a decade ago.
He grows 23 kinds of vegetables, compared with 15 a decade ago, including beans, peas, herbs and strawberries. He says he has sold some strawberries to top restaurants in Copenhagen.
The claim you can not farm in Greenland is false, and they are noticing changes due to a warmer climate.
Uhh, they are growing these crops in greenhouses. Are you purposely trying to misrepresent conditions or do you believe that the Vikings had greenhouses?
I suggest reading the article and not just skimming it before you formulate your flippant reply.
"There are now huge areas in southern Greenland where you can grow things," said Josephine Nymand, a scientist at the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources in Nuuk. "Potatoes have most benefited. Also, cabbage has been very successful."
"Climate changes and the beginning of the Little Ice Age forced the Norsemen at the start of 13th century A.D., to consolidate and move everyone to the South of Greenland, where farming was still possible in spite of cold summers and longer winters. Some of the best kept ruins of farm buildings are actually found in the fiord by the capital city of Nuuk, on the west coast, and testifies to the fact, that they moved away due to climate change and hardship, and during a time when the farms in Southern Greenland were significantly larger, but fewer in number."
Imagine that - in the run-up to the Little Ice Age they could still plant in the southern settlement of Greenland and we are discovering that they STILL CAN TODAY in the middle of your global warming/climate change.
Exactly how does it feel to be shown as nothing more than a political hack?
By the way - potatoes can grow in -10C. The optimum temp for cabbage is 15-20C. Strawberries will NOT grow in these conditions and neither will tomatoes. So those are greenhouse crops.
Edited on 05-03-2017 19:48 |
| 05-03-2017 19:41 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
https://www.learner.org/jnorth/search/CaribouNotes3.html
Q. What makes the Coastal Plain a good place for calving?
The full reason the herd returns each year traditional calving grounds is not fully understood. However, it is likely that they choose these areas because spring vegetation appears here first. These areas also offer better protection from predators and insects.
Q.How do winter snowstorms affect the caribou?
Believe it or not, caribou don't like deep snow. Caribou feed on lichens under the snow and tend to occupy areas with favorable snow conditions. Favorable areas for digging feeding craters have snow depths of less than 50-60 cm (20-24 in) and densities of less than 0.34 g/cm. Big snowstorms make it difficult to find food.
A little warmer seems to be quite a good thing for these animals. Your article claims fact that they set migration to amount of daylight. This article says it not fully understood. Bottom line, they go where the food is and is easiest to get at.
I assume we can agree that colder snowier? Is there more or less food with snow? Is food more or less accessible with more snow? How is warmer HURTING anything? How can you not grasp this?
Whats to agree on? you are interpreting that your link implies that warmer conditions would be better for caribou my link is probably more recent and is reporting on what is currently being observed.
Congratulations on making a coherent argument that is based on things that people have written and not based on insults but I find the point you are trying to make unconvincing.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-03-2017 19:59 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly? |
| 05-03-2017 20:01 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly?
It isn't beer. It fits in a needle. |
| 05-03-2017 20:15 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly?
That's not the argument, I have linked too and quoted information backing up my argument that warmer conditions are not necessarily better for arctic adapted species. Have you read it?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-03-2017 20:17 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly?
It isn't beer. It fits in a needle.
Te he you rednecks are into your meth anyway.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 05-03-2017 21:36 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly?
It isn't beer. It fits in a needle.
Te he you rednecks are into your meth anyway.
The normal response of an addict - "te he". Can't even spell it right on your high. |
|
| 07-03-2017 05:41 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gassed: I'm so sorry. I didn't realize you were so young.
I'm NOT sorry. I did realize you were so stupid. |
| 08-03-2017 20:23 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly?
It isn't beer. It fits in a needle.
Te he you rednecks are into your meth anyway.
The normal response of an addict - "te he". Can't even spell it right on your high.
Its the same as LoL you muppet, tell me how are you supposed to spell it?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 08-03-2017 23:04 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly?
It isn't beer. It fits in a needle.
Te he you rednecks are into your meth anyway.
The normal response of an addict - "te he". Can't even spell it right on your high.
Its the same as LoL you muppet, tell me how are you supposed to spell it?
Exactly why would you ask me? All you would have had to do is look it up in a dictionary to discover: "tee-hee" A titter or giggle.
You know what? By the 10th grade I had read all of the books in the school and the local public library. You appear to have never read a book in your life. |
| 09-03-2017 20:59 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know they have some phenomenal beer over there across the pond, but you may want to lay off for just a bit. If we can't agree that colder average means more snow than rain, you are inebriated.
If you had 2 dinner plates, 2 entrees of the same meal, one plate is buried outside in the snow, which one you gonna take down first? Are you sober enough to answer honestly?
It isn't beer. It fits in a needle.
Te he you rednecks are into your meth anyway.
The normal response of an addict - "te he". Can't even spell it right on your high.
Its the same as LoL you muppet, tell me how are you supposed to spell it?
Exactly why would you ask me? All you would have had to do is look it up in a dictionary to discover: "tee-hee" A titter or giggle.
You know what? By the 10th grade I had read all of the books in the school and the local public library. You appear to have never read a book in your life.
Who needs a dictionary?? Such things are all over the internet. It's just spot being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic again. He must never laugh, titter, or giggle. He doesn't know how to write it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 09-03-2017 21:29 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Who needs a dictionary?? Such things are all over the internet. It's just spot being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic again. He must never laugh, titter, or giggle. He doesn't know how to write it.
Unfortunately I think that you are correct. I was just reading that Einstein said that you have to go through the school of hard knocks. But I don't think that people know that he was considered a loon for 30 years until test after test showed him correct. Do you know they were STILL trying to disprove him in 1960?
Now they're trying to discover some way around his theories. |
| 10-03-2017 02:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Who needs a dictionary?? Such things are all over the internet. It's just spot being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic again. He must never laugh, titter, or giggle. He doesn't know how to write it.
Unfortunately I think that you are correct. I was just reading that Einstein said that you have to go through the school of hard knocks. But I don't think that people know that he was considered a loon for 30 years until test after test showed him correct. Do you know they were STILL trying to disprove him in 1960?
Now they're trying to discover some way around his theories.
There are still people trying to disprove him today.
That's OK. That's what science is about. So far no one has been able to disprove his theory. That's why it still stands.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 10-03-2017 03:08 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Who needs a dictionary?? Such things are all over the internet. It's just spot being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic again. He must never laugh, titter, or giggle. He doesn't know how to write it.
Unfortunately I think that you are correct. I was just reading that Einstein said that you have to go through the school of hard knocks. But I don't think that people know that he was considered a loon for 30 years until test after test showed him correct. Do you know they were STILL trying to disprove him in 1960?
Now they're trying to discover some way around his theories.
Of course he was. That's why he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize, 16 years after his formulation of special relativity in 1905. You don't half talk some shit, Wake. |
| 10-03-2017 06:53 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
Surface Detail wrote: he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize, 16 years after his formulation of special relativity in 1905.
Einstein's Nobel Prize was NOT for his special relativity break-thru, but for less awe-inspiring work in photo-electrics, due to egotistical anti-Semitism. Credit was given to a Jew, but NOT for the magnificent relativity display of intellect, which admittedly, many scientists still didn't quite understand.
Edited on 10-03-2017 06:54 |
| 10-03-2017 12:54 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
litesong wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize, 16 years after his formulation of special relativity in 1905.
Einstein's Nobel Prize was NOT for his special relativity break-thru, but for less awe-inspiring work in photo-electrics, due to egotistical anti-Semitism. Credit was given to a Jew, but NOT for the magnificent relativity display of intellect, which admittedly, many scientists still didn't quite understand.
Although Einstein's theory of special relativity was widely accepted by 1921, conclusive experimental evidence to support it was still lacking. Nevertheless, it was still felt that he deserved the Nobel Prize, which is why it was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. This was also groundbreaking, being some of the first direct evidence for the quantisation of light. |
| 10-03-2017 17:14 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
litesong wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize, 16 years after his formulation of special relativity in 1905.
Einstein's Nobel Prize was NOT for his special relativity break-thru, but for less awe-inspiring work in photo-electrics, due to egotistical anti-Semitism. Credit was given to a Jew, but NOT for the magnificent relativity display of intellect, which admittedly, many scientists still didn't quite understand.
Although Einstein's theory of special relativity was widely accepted by 1921, conclusive experimental evidence to support it was still lacking. Nevertheless, it was still felt that he deserved the Nobel Prize, which is why it was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. This was also groundbreaking, being some of the first direct evidence for the quantisation of light.
The photo-electric effect REQUIRED his Special Theory to be true. So while it wasn't awarded FOR the Special Theory because there wasn't the instrumentation to test it fully, it was more or less proven by the photo-electric effect requiring light to be in quanta - discrete packets. The entire Special Relativity requires light to behave as it did. |
| 11-03-2017 03:14 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
litesong wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize, 16 years after his formulation of special relativity in 1905.
Einstein's Nobel Prize was NOT for his special relativity break-thru, but for less awe-inspiring work in photo-electrics, due to egotistical anti-Semitism. Credit was given to a Jew, but NOT for the magnificent relativity display of intellect, which admittedly, many scientists still didn't quite understand.
Although Einstein's theory of special relativity was widely accepted by 1921, conclusive experimental evidence to support it was still lacking. Nevertheless, it was still felt that he deserved the Nobel Prize, which is why it was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. This was also groundbreaking, being some of the first direct evidence for the quantisation of light.
The photo-electric effect REQUIRED his Special Theory to be true. So while it wasn't awarded FOR the Special Theory because there wasn't the instrumentation to test it fully, it was more or less proven by the photo-electric effect requiring light to be in quanta - discrete packets. The entire Special Relativity requires light to behave as it did.
You could hardly be more wrong.
Back in 1905, there was still intensive debate about whether light consisted of waves or particles. Special relativity was based on the constant speed of light predicted for a travelling electromagnetic wave by Maxwell's equations. It very much depends on the wavelike properties of light.
The photoelectric effect, on the other hand, was evidence that light is quantised, that is, that light is a stream of particles. It certainly is not dependent on special relativity, which depends on the wavelike properties of light. The photoelectric effect actually appears to contradict special relativity.
It was Einstein's genius that led us to consider light as having both wavelike and particle-like properties so that it propagates as a wave but transfers energy in quanta. We refer to this as wave-particle duality. |
| 11-03-2017 16:47 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
litesong wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize, 16 years after his formulation of special relativity in 1905.
Einstein's Nobel Prize was NOT for his special relativity break-thru, but for less awe-inspiring work in photo-electrics, due to egotistical anti-Semitism. Credit was given to a Jew, but NOT for the magnificent relativity display of intellect, which admittedly, many scientists still didn't quite understand.
Although Einstein's theory of special relativity was widely accepted by 1921, conclusive experimental evidence to support it was still lacking. Nevertheless, it was still felt that he deserved the Nobel Prize, which is why it was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. This was also groundbreaking, being some of the first direct evidence for the quantisation of light.
The photo-electric effect REQUIRED his Special Theory to be true. So while it wasn't awarded FOR the Special Theory because there wasn't the instrumentation to test it fully, it was more or less proven by the photo-electric effect requiring light to be in quanta - discrete packets. The entire Special Relativity requires light to behave as it did.
You could hardly be more wrong.
Back in 1905, there was still intensive debate about whether light consisted of waves or particles. Special relativity was based on the constant speed of light predicted for a travelling electromagnetic wave by Maxwell's equations. It very much depends on the wavelike properties of light.
The photoelectric effect, on the other hand, was evidence that light is quantised, that is, that light is a stream of particles. It certainly is not dependent on special relativity, which depends on the wavelike properties of light. The photoelectric effect actually appears to contradict special relativity.
It was Einstein's genius that led us to consider light as having both wavelike and particle-like properties so that it propagates as a wave but transfers energy in quanta. We refer to this as wave-particle duality.
I love it when you show a basic ignorance of science.
Edited on 11-03-2017 16:47 |
| 11-03-2017 18:25 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Although Einstein's theory of special relativity was widely accepted by 1921, conclusive experimental evidence to support it was still lacking. Nevertheless, it was still felt that he deserved the Nobel Prize, which is why it was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. This was also groundbreaking, being some of the first direct evidence for the quantisation of light.
The photo-electric effect REQUIRED his Special Theory to be true. So while it wasn't awarded FOR the Special Theory because there wasn't the instrumentation to test it fully, it was more or less proven by the photo-electric effect requiring light to be in quanta - discrete packets. The entire Special Relativity requires light to behave as it did.
You could hardly be more wrong.
Back in 1905, there was still intensive debate about whether light consisted of waves or particles. Special relativity was based on the constant speed of light predicted for a travelling electromagnetic wave by Maxwell's equations. It very much depends on the wavelike properties of light.
The photoelectric effect, on the other hand, was evidence that light is quantised, that is, that light is a stream of particles. It certainly is not dependent on special relativity, which depends on the wavelike properties of light. The photoelectric effect actually appears to contradict special relativity.
It was Einstein's genius that led us to consider light as having both wavelike and particle-like properties so that it propagates as a wave but transfers energy in quanta. We refer to this as wave-particle duality.
I love it when you show a basic ignorance of science.
It was you who just claimed that Einstein was regarded as a loon for 30 years when, in fact, he was awarded the Nobel Prize 16 years after formulating his theories of special relativity and the photoelectric effect. It's pretty obvious which of the two of us has a basic ignorance of science, and it ain't me. |
| 11-03-2017 23:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Although Einstein's theory of special relativity was widely accepted by 1921, conclusive experimental evidence to support it was still lacking. Nevertheless, it was still felt that he deserved the Nobel Prize, which is why it was awarded for his work on the photoelectric effect. This was also groundbreaking, being some of the first direct evidence for the quantisation of light.
The photo-electric effect REQUIRED his Special Theory to be true. So while it wasn't awarded FOR the Special Theory because there wasn't the instrumentation to test it fully, it was more or less proven by the photo-electric effect requiring light to be in quanta - discrete packets. The entire Special Relativity requires light to behave as it did.
You could hardly be more wrong.
Back in 1905, there was still intensive debate about whether light consisted of waves or particles. Special relativity was based on the constant speed of light predicted for a travelling electromagnetic wave by Maxwell's equations. It very much depends on the wavelike properties of light.
The photoelectric effect, on the other hand, was evidence that light is quantised, that is, that light is a stream of particles. It certainly is not dependent on special relativity, which depends on the wavelike properties of light. The photoelectric effect actually appears to contradict special relativity.
It was Einstein's genius that led us to consider light as having both wavelike and particle-like properties so that it propagates as a wave but transfers energy in quanta. We refer to this as wave-particle duality.
I love it when you show a basic ignorance of science.
It was you who just claimed that Einstein was regarded as a loon for 30 years when, in fact, he was awarded the Nobel Prize 16 years after formulating his theories of special relativity and the photoelectric effect. It's pretty obvious which of the two of us has a basic ignorance of science, and it ain't me.
I love it when you again show your ignorance of basic science. |
| 12-03-2017 23:46 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" guffed: I've always wanted to arrow one.
Ah.... you keep missing..... |
|
| 13-03-2017 05:48 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Ah.... you keep missing.....
Funny you posted this...I just beat my 14 year old son at 25 yds. He had a .22 open sights on a bench rest.... and me, I had 5 arrows. I don't miss.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 13-03-2017 18:18 |
litesong★★★★★
(2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter"
litesong wrote: Ah.... you keep missing.....
at 25 yds. He had a .22 open sights on a bench rest.... and me, I had 5 arrows. I don't miss.
My scoped Remington 581, .22 with CCI hollowpoints (no expensive target ammo) would hold 2/3rds of an inch, 5 shot groups at 50 yards. Yeah, often one shot just wouldn't keep the group under half an inch. Knocked off a pigeon at 125 yards with a braced sitting position. Hit it perfectly where I had calculated the drop. Pigeon is dry, but a good cook will help.
Edited on 13-03-2017 18:21 |