Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing.

[Michael]

I think the quote that best sums up your understanding of physics is this line RC:

A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

I've heard dumb comments from physicists before, but that one literally takes the cake! The fact you never admitted the mistake is an absolute riot!

ENERGY OF PHOTON

 

[RealityCheck01]

Dark energy, inflation and dark matter *combined* are apparently more impotent on Earth than your average concept of "God".

And we are getting into delusion terratory or at least abysmal ignorance about sceince.
There is no requiremnt in science that objects be tested in labs. No one has tested a star in a lab or a galxy in a lab. But you would agree that stars and galaxies exist.

You have no right to question anyone in the field of astronomy since you do not have the first clue about the nature of photons and everything we know about space comes from photons!
...usual rant snipped...

You have no right to question anyone in the field of astronomy since you canot understand that the number 5700 is higher than the number 1811 Duh!

 

[Michael]

You are utterlying wrong about this thread:
I did not say that photons do not have kinetic energy. They have a kinetic energy which is always zero because their mass is always zero.

Still wrong:

ENERGY OF PHOTON

 

[Michael]

And we are getting into delusion terratory or at least abysmal ignorance about sceince.
There is no requiremnt in science that objects be tested in labs.

What was your personal beef with the whole God concept exactly? Why aren't you an atheist "crackpot" just by virtue of being in the minority position anyway?

No one has tested a star in a lab or a galxy in a lab. But you would agree that stars and galaxies exist.

I can see and feel stars.

You have no right to question anyone in the field of astronomy since you canot understand that the number 5700 is higher than the number 1811 Duh!

If I believed mainstream theory was correct about the "opacity" of the photosphere, and you actually knew the first thing about photon kinetic energy, I might actually care what you think.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I think the quote that best sums up your understanding of physics is this line RC:

I think the above post best sums up your understanding of English and physics.
The classical definition of kinetic energy involves mass. Thus:

A photon always has a kinetic energy of zero.
​

I do admit the mistake of thinking that you could understand that because I stated that a photon always has a kinetic energy of zero that I was talking about classical kinetic energy.
Hint: Classical kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2.

 

[Michael]

I think the above post best sums up your understanding of English and physics.
The classical definition of kinetic energy involves mass. Thus:

Thus RC remains ignorant of QM and basic photon physics for all time apparently.

ENERGY OF PHOTON

Is this author a "crank/crackpot/yada,yada,yada" too?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I can see and feel stars.

So what: Have you tested them in a lab? That is your criteria for things to exist.

Anyone can "see" and "feel" in the scientific sense, dark matter, dark energy and inflation. That is you can make observations and deduce that they exist.
Inflation is more theoretical than the other 2.

If I believed mainstream theory was correct about the "opacity" of the photosphere, and you actually knew the first thing about photon kinetic energy, I might actually care what you think.

Who cares about your personal beliefs about mainstream theory .
The photosphere has opacity because all gases and plasmas (and liquids and solids!) have opacity.

Opacity is the measure of impenetrability to electromagnetic or other kinds of radiation, especially visible light. In radiative transfer, it describes the absorption and scattering of radiation in a medium, such as a plasma, dielectric, shielding material, glass, etc.

But what I said was:

You have no right to question anyone in the field of astronomy since you canot understand that the number 5700 is higher than the number 1811 Duh!
​

This is a comment on simple math and physical facts about the Sun and Fe.
The photosphere temperature of ~5700 K is a measurement that has nothing to do with opacity.
The melting point of iron being 1881 K is a measurement that has nothing to do with opacity.

And yet again you state the delusion that I do not know the first thing about photon kinetic energy.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Thus RC remains ignorant of QM and basic photon physics for all time apparently.

Should I will follow your example and continuuously go on about this little mistake that you have just made?

Thus M remains ignorant of the basic photon physics and that photon energy is a relativistic kinetic energy (special relativity not QM) for all time apparently.
​

M remains ignorant of the ability to read posts that I have written for all time apparently.

No when you say I am deluded as it relates to photon kinetic energy then it is an attack because I know the physics:

• "photon kinetic energy" is always zero (1/2mv^2!)
• photon energy though is relativistic and kinetic and depends on wavelength

When you use the term "photon kinetic energy" is is not an attack from me to point out that you are wrong.

Strictly speaking, it is "photon relativistic kinetic energy" but most people drop the relativistic and the kinetic.

 

[Michael]

So what: Have you tested them in a lab? That is your criteria for things to exist.

Birkeland tested his solar model in the lab. If you can't do that with your model, it's no skin off my nose. I'll still give you fusion as an energy source since fusion has been demonstrated on Earth.

Anyone can "see" and "feel" in the scientific sense, dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

What a giant load of horse manure. Anyone can "see" and "feel" in the scientific sense "plasma redshift/tired light", but then they'd actually have to read the material in question and respond intelligently to it. Since you won't be bothered to read it, that explains all the horse manure.

That is you can make observations and deduce that they exist.
Inflation is more theoretical than the other 2.

SUSY theory died a most agonizing death last year at the hands of those terrible guys at LHC. They just falsified one SUSY theory after another. It turns out that the only reason you personally need dark energy and inflation to explain redshift is because you refuse to read and address the work presented by Holushko.

Who cares about your personal beliefs about mainstream theory .
The photosphere has opacity because all gases and plasmas (and liquids and solids!) have opacity.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...wer-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/

The mainstream solar model just bit the dust this year too based on heliosiesmology data from SDO. The mainstream lost their power source to explain solar atmospheric behaviors, *and* their right to claim that heavy and light elements stay 'mixed together" in the solar atmosphere. Their numbers came out way off, and the real convection speed is around 1 percent of mainstream models. You go right ahead however and keep ignoring recent evidence because that seems to be what you do best.

than the number 1811 Duh!
This is a commentoon simple math and physical facts about the Sun and Fe.
The photosphere temperature of ~5700 K is a measurement that has nothing to do with opacity.

I'd try to explain to you that the reason it's possible to have a 5700K photosphere sitting *under* a 20,000K chromosphere and million degree corona *is* related to opacity and density, by why waste my breath? If you don't know the first thing about photon kinetic energy, there's no way to explain any of the important details and predictions of my model to you in the first place and you have a proven track record of ignoring everything everyone else says anyway. If you won't cop to your error about photon kinetic energy, there's a zero likelihood that you'll even understand the explanation.

And yet again you state the delusion that I do not know the first thing about photon kinetic energy.

I know for a fact that you don't know the first thing about it because you've never corrected your error!

A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .

ENERGY OF PHOTON

 

[Michael]

Should I will follow your example and continuuously go on about this little mistake that you have just made?

A normal human being, and certainly any real scientist would have read the links that I provided on photon kinetic energy, seen the mistake they made, corrected the mistake, and moved on by now. Since you *still* refuse to acknowledge that a photon has and transports kinetic energy, there's no point in continuing to try to have a scientific a discussion with you. You are not even responding rationally to any information that you personally disagree with. I handed you an *extremely* clear link to a one page explanation of photon kinetic energy that shows you that photons carry and posses kinetic energy. You have still never corrected your error.

 

[Michael]

Someone isn't telling the truth:

http://www.greatians.com/physics/wave/energy%20of%20photon.htm#WD.1.0

Is Kok-Haw Kong a crank and a liar too RC when he writes about and describes photon kinetic energy? He claims that photons have kinetic energy whereas you claim it's always zero. One of you cannot be telling me the truth RC. Who's not telling me the truth, you or Kong?

 

[RealityCheck01]

...nothing to do with what I wrote..

So what: Have you tested them in a lab? That is your criteria for things to exist.

then is actual star.So what: Have you tested them in a lab? That is your criteria for things to exist."them" is acual stars.

What a giant load of horse manure.
...usual rant snipped...

So lets link to the "giant load of horse manure" that you have been ignoring for how many years Michael?
Dark matter - observation evidence
Dark Energy - evidence
Inflation - Observational status

...another rant about SUSY snipped...
It turns out that the only reason you personally need dark energy and inflation to explain redshift is because you refuse to read and address the work presented by Holushko.

Do you really think that inflation and dark energy is needed to exaplaing (cosmological) redshift?

The mainstream solar model just bit the dust this year too based on heliosiesmology data from SDO.
...snipped some more displays of ignorance...

And now you are getting into solar phsyics and exposing your ignorance once again.
(I will ignore the ignorance in linking to a climate change denier site!)
Researchers create ‘MRI’ of the sun’s interior motions

A team of scientists has created an “MRI” of the Sun’s interior plasma motions, shedding light on how it transfers heat from its deep interior to its surface.

(my emphasis added)

There is convection in the interior of the Sun which has been known for a long time - you can see the top of convection cells in the photosphere!
This screws up any fantasies about layers inside the Sun. But in any case astronomy students would tell you that layers are impossible according to the known laws of physics (basically plasmas are turbulent so layers mix up).

The I'd try to explain to you that the reason it's possible to have a 5700K photosphere sitting *under* a 20,000K chromosphere and million degree corona *is* related to opacity and density, by why waste my breath?

Wait - you have just admitted that the photosphere is at a temperature of ~5700 K and so any iron in or below it must have melted (in fact boiled into plasma) !

This is not related to my point that the ~5700 K temperature is a measurement. The actual temperature is not related to opacity. It is related to the observations that show that fusion is happening at the Sun's core. The core is at a temperature of ~13,000,000 K. Take a ball of plasma with a core at a temperature of ~13,000,000 K, apply the known laws of physics and the surface has a temperature of ~5700 K.

If you don't know the first thing about photon kinetic energy, there's no way to explain any of the important details and predictions of my model to you in the first place

I know about photon relativistic kinetic energy so you can explain the important details and predictions of your model.

Except I know the details and "predictions" of your model and I can post links!
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010

This is 1 of 65 questions about your model that you have not been able to answer since May 2011 and earlier. But now you have an actual model with actual predictions. So you should be able to answer the questions now.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Someone isn't telling the truth[/quote]
Someone is still unable to read:

... I know the physics:

• "photon kinetic energy" is always zero (1/2mv^2!)
• photon energy though is relativistic and kinetic and depends on wavelength

When you use the term "photon kinetic energy" is is not an attack from me to point out that you are wrong.

Strictly speaking, it is "photon relativistic kinetic energy" but most people drop the relativistic and the kinetic.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A normal human being, and certainly any real scientist would have read the links that ...

A normal human being, and certainly any one who can read would have read the posts where I agreed with what those links stated because what they stated is whatis in the textbooks:

• "photon kinetic energy" is always zero (1/2mv^2!)
• photon energy though is relativistic and kinetic and depends on wavelength

P.S. Maybe I should do this since you are persisting in your inability to read my posts where I state the above.

Should I will follow your example and continuuously go on about this little mistake that you have just made?

Thus M remains ignorant of the basic photon physics and that photon energy is a relativistic kinetic energy (special relativity not QM) for all time apparently.
​

 

[Michael]

Someone isn't telling the truth[/quote]
Someone is still unable to read:

Oh, I can read just fine:

I did not say that photons do not have kinetic energy. They have a kinetic energy which is always zero because their mass is always zero.

BZZZZZT! Still wrong!

ENERGY OF PHOTON

Who is not telling the truth RC, you or Kong? It the kinetic energy of a photon *always zero*, yes or no?

 

[RealityCheck01]

BZZZZZT! You are still wrong!
Thus M remains ignorant of the basic photon physics and that photon energy is a relativistic kinetic energy (special relativity not QM) for all time apparently.

And rather stupidly iignoring my post:

A normal human being, and certainly any one who can read would have read the posts where I agreed with what those links stated because what they stated is whatis in the textbooks:

• "photon kinetic energy" is always zero (1/2mv^2!)
• photon energy though is relativistic and kinetic and depends on wavelength

 

[RealityCheck01]

P.S.

Except I know the details and "predictions" of your model and I can post links!
How can we detect the less than 1 photon per year from your iron crust?
First asked 24 April 2010

This is 1 of 65 questions about your model that you have not been able to answer since May 2011 and earlier. But now you have an actual model with actual predictions. So you should be able to answer the questions now.

 

[Michael]

So lets link to the "giant load of horse manure" that you have been ignoring for how many years Michael?
Dark matter - observation evidence

Let's go through your claims one by one, shall we? Nobody doubts that mainstream models fail to locate and account for all the mass in the universe. Unfortunately for "dark dogma" however, SUSY theory just bit the dust, or at least several of the most "simple" versions bit the dust, so there's little doubt that the mainstream missed a lot of ordinary plasma. We also have evidence of this since they just found a *huge* amount (more than they'd already found) of plasma in a bubble around the galaxy and they really have no sure way to tell how far it extends. There's no evidence whatsoever that any of the missing mass is found in exotic forms of matter, and lots of evidence it's found in ordinary matter.

Dark Energy - evidence
Inflation - Observational status

There is no (as in zero) "observational evidence" for either dark energy or inflation. There is only evidence of "photon redshift". As Holushko explains (anytime you stop playing couch potato physicist) the supernova data can be explained by ordinary plasma physics processes, without any need at all for inflation or dark energy or expansion for that matter. Were you intending to run from that paper forever and ever or what?

Do you really think that inflation and dark energy is needed to exaplaing (cosmological) redshift?

Nope. Not at all. Not even a tiny little bit.

And now you are getting into solar phsyics and exposing your ignorance once again.

Stop hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss solar physics (something else you know nothing about), do it in the right thread. I won't respond to your solar questions in this thread.

I know about photon relativistic kinetic energy so you can explain the important details and predictions of your model.

Nope, you demonstrated for all the world to see that you know absolutely nothing at all about photon kinetic energy so I might as well be trying to explain QM to my cat.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Let's go through your claims one by one, shall we?

The first thing that you get wrong - they are mot my claims. They are the evidence for dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

Nobody doubts that mainstream models fail to locate and account for all the mass in the universe.
...Another SYSY rant snipped...

Wrong again. The mainsteam models account fro all of the mass in the universe. The observations split that into the 4% of normal matter (mostly located now!) and the 73% from dark matter (all located).

Wow - you did not even address one bit of evidence for dark matter !

There is no (as in zero) "observational evidence" for either dark energy or inflation.

An outright lie:
Dark Energy - evidence
Inflation - Observational status

Nope.

Good - I was beginning to think that you were so ignorant that you thought that cosmological redshift was caused by inflation!
(Dark energy does have an effect - it accelerates the expansion).

Nope, you demonstrated for all the world to see that you know absolutely nothing at all about photon kinetic energy so I might as well be trying to explain QM to my cat.

And another lie:

A normal human being, and certainly any one who can read would have read the posts where I agreed with what those links stated because what they stated is what is in the textbooks:

• "photon kinetic energy" is always zero (1/2mv^2!)
• photon energy though is relativistic and kinetic and depends on wavelength

And a repeat of the delusion that QM in involved with photon relativistic kinetic energy!

Originally Posted by Michael

Thus RC remains ignorant of QM and basic photon physics for all time apparently.
​

Thus M remains ignorant of the basic photon physics and that photon energy is a relativistic kinetic energy (special relativity not QM) for all time apparently.
​

And yet another delusion - that I need QM explained to me! I got QM stuffed into my brain for 7 years at university (3 undergraduate, 4 postgraduate).
I still have fond memories of a third year math class which had an a simple assignment - show the derivation of a significant part of mathematical physics. I chose spinors and the path that Dirac took in deriving his equation for electrons that needed them.
Feynmann diagrams rule!
The Wannier representation in QED rules!

 

[RealityCheck01]

You are right

Stop hijacking this thread. If you want to discuss solar physics (something else you know nothing about), do it in the right thread. I won't respond to your solar questions in this thread.

so here it is: Micheal's solar model

My suspicion is that you are going to either ignore that thread or do the "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic that I saw in the JREF forum. However you may surprise me and actually have answers to the fatal flaws listed there!