Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Michael · Dec 5, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
I know exactly what I and you said and that by the end of that day (16 October 2012) I stated the basic physics which I have been stating to you every time that you have gone on the photon KE rant:
Continuing with the photon KE rant yet again !
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II

Everyone can read the conversation for themselves. When they do so, I'm sure they'll notice that every single time I asked you for an external reference to support your absurd assertion that photons have no kinetic energy, you failed to produce one. The single reference you ultimately provided stated rather bluntly that your claim was "not right"! They'll undoubtedly see for themselves that you're personally incapable of admitting any mistakes.

Anyone following the only other thread you're engaged in at this entire forum will undoubtedly see how absurdly you defend pure nonsense on your part.

Since you *refuse* to pickup a textbook on this topic and educate yourself properly, about the only thing you have going for you is pure, utterly ignorant stamina.

Michael · Dec 5, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
That cause looks like an energy.

Whatever the cause of photon redshift, it can't "look like" invisible nonsense. You can't cite a single source of this mythical stuff. You can't show any mechanical means to create or control it. You can't show any relationship to any quantity of "dark energy" and any amount of photon redshift. The only thing it "looks like" is a gigantic fudge factor of truly *epic* proportions, all to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from certain and absolute destruction.

It is not seen to emit light. So they label the cause of this deviation dark energy.

They simply label their own ignorance of inelastic scattering "dark energy". The term is simply a placeholder term for human ignorance, specifically the ignorance of the effect of inelastic scattering processes on photons in space.

Neutrons show up in the lab, whereas your invisible friends do not. All theories need to be scaled. The fact you can't differentiate between *scaling* problems and metaphysical nonsense is another clear example of your irrational method of debate. You don't listen anyway, so of course I'm wasting my breath.

It is easy to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between between photon redshift and dark energy candidates - at least for a a non-zero cosmological constant (quintessence is another matter). I will leave it to you to find any of the hundreds? of demonstrations on the web or in textbooks that a non-zero cosmological constant exerts a negative pressure that accelerates expansion. Not that you will !

I've read the textbooks. They all suffer from the same problem. Not once has any source of dark energy been found. Not once has a dark matter candidate been found in a lab. All but 4 percent of mainstream theory is an "act of pure faith" on the part of the "believer". Lambda-CDM is a "religion" that has almost nothing to do with empirical physics. The four percent of real physics is pure window dressing to make it look "official". The rest is pure ad hoc nonsense. Not once in more than 15 years has *any human being* found a source of "dark energy". "Dark matter" failed every single test at LHC done to date.

But you may be taking about an insane demand that this be done in a lab here on Earth. I hope not because that would reveal an abysmal level of ignorance about cosmology.

The only one who is abysmally ignorant of cosmology theory (besides just one mainstream theory) is you personally. That is easy to understand since you *refuse* to educate yourself to any other theory.

Loudmouth · Dec 5, 2012

Michael said:
Whatever the cause of photon redshift, it can't "look like" invisible nonsense.

So how would the data be different if it were really produced by accelerating expansion?

They simply label their own ignorance of inelastic scattering "dark energy".

Redshift caused by inelastic scattering would produce blurring and a massive loss of light for distant objects. That is not seen. RC also does a great job of showing that we would see double bands due to the mean free path of photons through plasma. We do not see these double bands.

Neutrons show up in the lab, whereas your invisible friends do not.

Plasma redshift without blurring does not show up in the lab either.

Loudmouth · Dec 5, 2012

Michael said:
Everyone can read the conversation for themselves. When they do so, I'm sure they'll notice that every single time I asked you for an external reference to support your absurd assertion that photons have no kinetic energy, you failed to produce one.

Kinetic energy= mass x acceleration

Photons have no mass, therefore they have no kinetic energy. Not that hard to figure out.

Michael · Dec 5, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Kinetic energy= mass x acceleration

Photons have no mass, therefore they have no kinetic energy. Not that hard to figure out.

Oh, I'm quite sure it's easy to get the *wrong* answer!

Energy Transfer, Photons, and Kinetic Energy
ENERGY OF PHOTON
Gamma Rays and Kinetic Energy

It takes a bit more effort to get the *right* answer.

Loudmouth · Dec 5, 2012

Michael said:
Oh, I'm quite sure it's easy to get the *wrong* answer!

Energy Transfer, Photons, and Kinetic Energy
ENERGY OF PHOTON
Gamma Rays and Kinetic Energy

It takes a bit more effort to get the *right* answer.

So why don't you put in some more effort, then. Photons have no mass, therefore they can not have kinetic energy which requires mass. What they can do is transfer their energy into eletrons, and that increase in energy increases the kinetic energy of the electrons. That is what your links are saying. The energy of the photon is best described as potential energy, and that potential energy requires interaction with something with mass.

Loudmouth · Dec 5, 2012

Michael,

You have also yet to support your claims that photons would have to collide with plasma particles during their travels between a distant galaxy and our telescopes. Where is the math for that, and the measurements of plasma density that support your argument?

RealityCheck01 · Dec 5, 2012

An interesting new observation: Ancient gas sheds light on universe's first billion years

or the first time, astronomers have determined the chemical composition of gas from the first billion years of the universe's life. The gas consists mostly of neutral hydrogen atoms, which means that it may mark the era before stellar radiation began ionizing the universe. Furthermore, the gas shows no signs of the heavy elements that are forged in stars so it may contain only the light elements produced by the Big Bang.

Yet another nail in the coffin of tired light theories that have an eternal universe and so stars that have been around forever - why does the ionization of hydrogen (caused by starlight!) decrease with distance?

RealityCheck01 · Dec 5, 2012

Michael said:
Everyone can read the conversation for themselves. When they do so, I'm sure they'll notice that every single time I asked you for an external reference to support your absurd assertion that photons have no kinetic energy, you failed to produce one.

Everyone can read the conversation for themselves: Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II
When they do so that can see that you are stating delusions about what I wrote:
My assertions are the textbook physics that

Photons have no classical kinetic energy and
they do have relativistic kinetic energy

I quoted the definition of classical kinetic energy (1/2mv^2 ). If you are ignorant of this physics then that is your problem not mine.
I produced an external reference that matched what I asserted.

Michael said:
The single reference you ultimately provided stated rather bluntly that your claim was "not right"!

You are lying - my claim is and remains that that photons have no (zero) classical kinetic energy. My reference agrees with me.

How can photons have energy and momentum, but no mass?

Physicist: Classically (according to Newton) kinetic energy is given by and the momentum is given by , where m is the mass and v is the velocity. But if you plug in the mass and velocity for light you get . But thats no good. If light didnt carry energy, it wouldnt be able to heat stuff up.

Click to expand...

So:

I gave the right answer for the classical kinetic energy of a photon (zero).

That answer is no good because light heats stuff up. Which is why Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy goes onto relativistic kinetic energy.

I agree that photons have no (zero) classical kinetic energy is no good because they are observed to transfer energy. Thus the next point I make in Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II:

photons have no classical kinetic energy because their mass is zero (1/2mv^2)

photons have a relativistic kinetic energy that depends on their wavelength.

RealityCheck01 · Dec 5, 2012

Michael said:
You can't cite a single source of this mythical stuff.

You are lying: Dark energy

Michael said:
You can't show any mechanical means to create or control it.

The delusion that we have to control or create somtghing in order that it exist!
We cannot create stars - so they do not exist according to you !
We cannot control stars - so they do not exist according to you !
And you remain ignorant of what neutron stars are made of (neutron degenerate matter): Michael: No neutron degenerate matter in labs = neutron stars do not exist?

Michael said:
You can't show any relationship to any quantity of "dark energy" and any amount of photon redshift.

You are lying: Dark energy

Michael said:
They simply label their own ignorance of inelastic scattering "dark energy".

And now you think that every astronomer (and every scientist?) in the world is ignorant of inelastic scattering !
There is no "ignorance of the effect of inelastic scattering processes on photons in space" except by you .

I was right:

But you may be taking about an insane demand that this be done in a lab here on Earth. I hope not because that would reveal an abysmal level of ignorance about cosmology.

So this post reveals at least three things:

You are ignorant of the composition of neutron stars.
It is not free neutrons.
It is not atomic nuclei (protons + neutrons).
It is neutron-degenerate matter that has not been detected in the lab or even stranger stuff (quark-degenerate matter) that has not been detected in the lab.
You remain ignorant of the meaning of empirical in scaint. It includes observations. So you have the insane demand that things be detected in the lab before they exist: Michael: No neutron degenerate matter in labs = neutron stars do not exist?
You have no idea what dark energy is and that it is unlikely to detected in labs (like neutron-degenerate matter) and so you have the insane demand that it be detected in the lab.

Michael, we have never had matter at the temperatures and pressures that exist in the center of the Earth in the lab. So according to your logic, the center of the Earth does not exist and thus the Earth is hollow!

RealityCheck01 · Dec 5, 2012

Michael said:
Oh, I'm quite sure it's easy to get the *wrong* answer!
...
It takes a bit more effort to get the *right* answer.

You need to read
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II
where I give you the easy wrong answer returned from classical mechanics on 16th October 2012 at 05:15 PM.
I mention the easy correct answer returned from relativistic mechanics on the same day at 07:50 PM .

Michael · Dec 6, 2012

Talking to the two of you is like talking to a brick wall. Neither of you is interested in 'fact', specifically *empirical fact*! I've posted *numerous* links to the calculation of the *non rest mass* of a photon. I've posted links explaining that they all have kinetic energy *and mass*. Neither of you has acknowledged that point. Both of you ignore it. RC's only *external* reference claimed that his original claims were "not correct". He was wrong then. He's wrong now. He's been wrong since day one. Neither of you admits to being wrong. What's the point of having a conversation with you two when your whole belief system is predicated upon pure denial of scientific fact?

Photons have no *rest* mass because they are never at rest. They are a form of pure kinetic energy. They do have *mass*, it's just not at rest. Photons have kinetic energy. They lose kinetic energy in inelastic scattering processes. Electrical discharges occur in plasma too. Since RC and probably you too remain in staunch denial of these basic facts of physics, there's no logical way to have a rational conversation with either of you.

Michael · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
So why don't you put in some more effort, then.

I've done my best to educate the two of you but neither of you cares to learn. That's your fault, not mine.

Photons have no mass,

Absolutely false! I've even posted a link to an *external* reference that calculated the mass of a photon for you. Do you even remember it?

therefore they can not have kinetic energy which requires mass.

False again. Since photons *do* have *non rest* mass, they do also have kinetic energy and momentum. Since you two are ignorant of basic physics, you have no clue how photons *actually* work!

What they can do is transfer their energy into eletrons,

The fact they have a non zero energy state also demonstrates that they have a non zero mass. Do you not recall E=MC^2?

and that increase in energy increases the kinetic energy of the electrons.

Kinetic energy from the photon is transferred into the electron.

That is what your links are saying. The energy of the photon is best described as potential energy, and that potential energy requires interaction with something with mass.

You two ignore the authors *actual* words, and you now stick your own words in their mouth. How irrational!

Michael · Dec 6, 2012

RealityCheck01 said:
You need to read
Photons have no classical kinetic energy, they do have energy II
where I give you the easy wrong answer returned from classical mechanics on 16th October 2012 at 05:15 PM.
I mention the easy correct answer returned from relativistic mechanics on the same day at 07:50 PM .

You made a false statement which you have *never* admitted was a mistake nor corrected. You are incapable of admitting any mistakes as the photon kinetic energy and electrical discharges in plasma issues demonstrate very clearly. You are not capable of rationally discussing these issues. Whatever position you take is "gospel" according to RC, and nothing you say is every 'incorrect' in your mind, even when it's an *absurdly false* statement!

Electrical discharges *do* occur in plasma. Photons *do* have mass, it's just not 'at rest'. Photons *do* have kinetic energy. The one external author you cited claimed that your original statements were false, just like I told you.

When are you going to read a book on plasma physics RC?

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

Michael said:
Absolutely false! I've even posted a link to an *external* reference that calculated the mass of a photon for you. Do you even remember it?

"The photon is massless,[Note 2] has no electric charge,[12] and is stable. "
Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False again. Since photons *do* have *non rest* mass, they do also have kinetic energy and momentum. Since you two are ignorant of basic physics, you have no clue how photons *actually* work!

In classical physics, there is only rest mass. In classical physics, mass does not change with veolocity. Photons do not have classical kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy from the photon is transferred into the electron.

Classical kinetic energy is not transferred into the proton since photons do not contain classical kinetic energy.

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

Michael said:
Talking to the two of you is like talking to a brick wall. Neither of you is interested in 'fact', specifically *empirical fact*!

The fact you are ignoring is that Relativity and Classical physics are two different things.

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

Michael,

You still need to support your claim that photons would necessarily interact with free electrons in between us and other galaxies. I think we would all like to see those calculations. You will need to cite the density of plasma in these areas, and show that the density is high enough to guarantee interactions for all photons, and equal interactions across all wavelengths.

Michael · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
"The photon is massless,[Note 2] has no electric charge,[12] and is stable. "
Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Embrace SR and GR would you!

Mass in special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In classical physics, there is only rest mass.

In what universe is a photon at rest and have no energy at all?

In classical physics, mass does not change with veolocity. Photons do not have classical kinetic energy.

False. Photons have mass, it's just not "at rest'. Photons have kinetic energy. I've posted *numerous* links to demonstrate that fact. They *lose* kinetic energy in inelastic scattering events. I've demonstrated that fact in the lab. What you two do best is "classical snow job". You ignore the fact that in SR an GR E=MC^2, and we aren't living in the dark ages of physics.

Classical kinetic energy is not transferred into the proton since photons do not contain classical kinetic energy.

False. Since E=MC^2, and all photons have energy, they all have mass too. The mass they posses is simply not *at rest*. Your entire set of statements are false in SR and GR, and GR is the language of cosmology, even *plasma* cosmology theory!

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Michael · Dec 6, 2012

Loudmouth said:
Michael,

You still need to support your claim that photons would necessarily interact with free electrons in between us and other galaxies. I think we would all like to see those calculations. You will need to cite the density of plasma in these areas, and show that the density is high enough to guarantee interactions for all photons, and equal interactions across all wavelengths.

Right. I have to jump through a ton of hoops based on limited information, but you can't even so much a site a single source of 'dark' stuff, and somehow that's "ok" by you? I'm supposed to simply *ignore* the fact that SUSY theory died a horrible agonizing death at the LHC?

Loudmouth · Dec 6, 2012

Michael said:
Embrace SR and GR would you!

I do embrace them. However, it is correct to say that photons have no kinetic energy in classical physics. They do in SR/GR. That is all that is being said.

I fully agree that Relativity is the accurate description of physics. I am not arguing with you on that point. What is being clarified is that photons do not have mass in CLASSICAL physics, WHICH IS TRUE.

False. Photons have mass, it's just not "at rest'.

Objects do not gain mass in classical physics.

Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (2)

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency