Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
Utterly false.Photon "kinetic energy" cannot change (is always zero) and so has nothing to do with frequencey shifts.
Utterly false.And there is that "kinetic" again. A photon always has a kineteic energy of zero .
Then stop claiming photons have no mass! E=MC^2. M=E/C^2. Photons all have energy = Hf. M=Hf/C^2!I fully agree that Relativity is the accurate description of physics.
He didn't say *squat* about 'classical' physics in his original post. He just made false statements which I caught and he's been backpeddling ever since.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.
No, that's *NOT* what he said. He *actually* said the following, and it's *not* a comparison between the mass concepts of "classical' physics and GR:
Then stop claiming photons have no mass! E=MC^2. M=E/C^2. Photons all have energy = Hf. M=Hf/C^2!
This is what RC said in a very recent post:
"
"
- Photons have no classical kinetic energy and
- they do have relativistic kinetic energy
Notice the highlighted stuff in red.
Apparently when you two use the term "classical physics' you really mean 'ignorant understanding of ancient physics that has nothing to do with modern cosmology theories or photon redshift".As soon as you agree that photons do not have mass in classical physics, nor can they have kinetic energy in classical physics.
A "rational" person would have simply admitted that his two erroneous statements were in error and moved on. Instead he made up lame rationalizations as to why he was 'right' when he was actually as *wrong* as is humanly possible to be wrong on that topic! He didn't say *squat* about "classical" physics until *after* he got caught making false statements. He then tried to use that lame post to claim he "was right" all along! What a load of pure nonsense.
Do electrical discharges occur in solar flares LM?
Apparently when you two use the term "classical physics' you really mean 'ignorant understanding of ancient physics that has nothing to do with modern cosmology theories or photon redshift".
RC failed to specify that he was referring to classical physics, but he quickly indicated that he was. I understood exactly what he was talking about from the start.
He made *two erroneous statements*! Both of them are *directly* related to the photon redshift issue! Both were false statements. He didn't say "squat" about "classical" anything until his show got busted!He is really talking about the differences between classical physics where photons and electrons collide like bowling balls and the real way in which they react which is not like bowling balls.
Because his statements are factually incorrect!Why is this important?
Yes, that is how it works! We have moving particles slamming into other relatively stationary particles.Because you were insisting on a bowling ball (i.e. classical physics) style interaction for photons and electrons. That's not how it works.
Boloney! If you've ever played billiards/pool, the white ball sometimes loses it's momentum in a *forward* direction without being deflected. Sure, usually it is deflected, but *not every time*. It all depends on the *type* of scattering being discussed, and the *specific* angle of interaction. It's actually pretty easy to "scratch" by not putting any spin on the white cue ball and having it follow the ball it hit, and lost momentum to, right into the pocket!When a photon loses momentum it HAS TO CHANGE TRAJECTORY.
I'm simply exploring *all* the options, *all* of the scattering types, and *all* of the interactions.That is the point being made. You were trying to claim that some of the interactions did not result in a change of trajectory alluding to a bowling ball style of interacter per classical physics.
Why can't you answer a simple yes or no question?I really haven't followed it that closely. I do get a kick out of your solid iron surface in the Sun. That is good for some laughs.
That's easy. It simply "hits" the electron "head on" and transfers momentum in the *same direction of travel*. A typical absorption/emission process effectively does the same thing.Perhaps you should think about that for a bit, and then come back and tell us how an interaction between an electron and a photon can reduce the momentum of the photon without changing its trajectory.
You made the same mistake he did! You claimed they had *no* mass, resting or otherwise as I recall. Neither of you seems to care to embrace SR, let alone GR. Apparently you intend to spend the rest of your lives arguing ancient physics trivia.
Yes, that is how it work. You have moving particle slamming into other relatively stationary particles.
Boloney! If you've every played billiards/pool, the white ball loses it's momentum in a *forward* direction without being deflected. It all depends on the *type* of scattering being discussed, and the *specific* angle of interaction.
Why can't you answer a simple yes or no question?
That's easy. It simply "hits" the electron "head on" and transfers momentum in the *same direction of travel*. A typical absorption/emission process effectively does the same thing.
If you embraced SR and GR, you would understand that Ned Wright is correct when he states:
Again, a lost of momentum isn't *automatically* a cause of 'blurring'. Ned makes no distinction between a loss of momentum and a change in direction. It's like claiming it's impossible to scratch in pool when hitting another ball into a pocket."There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed."
Pfft. Your augments are based on ridiculous fallacies. GR has nothing to do with Compton scattering, or Brillioun scattering or any other type of inelastic scattering method. You're just 'making up" connections that do not even exist!So you reject GR and SR which require the photon to change trajectory if it loses momentum.
They can and do lose momentum in *any* inelastic scattering process, including *head on* inelastic scattering events.In the case of the head on collision for the billiard balls, one of the balls loses speed. This can't happen for photons. They are always moving at the speed of light.
It is how it work, and it's not related to gravity theory, not 'classical Newtonian gravity theory, or Einsteins GR! You're handwaving away based on pure non-sequitor fallacies!That's not how it works. You are using classical physics instead of GR and SR.
I handed you folks 7 published papers that all claimed solar flares were associated with "electrical discharges', starting with Dungey. How is that a "tough" question even?Because I don't know enough about the topic, but I do know enough about iron to know that you can't have a solid iron surface in the Sun.
Why? It's only *one* kind of scattering!Plug in a zero theta into the equation for Compton scattering:
Again, a lost of momentum isn't *automatically* a cause of 'blurring'.
Ned makes no distinction between a loss of momentum and a change in direction.
Pfft. Your augments are based on ridiculous fallacies. GR has nothing to do with Compton scattering, or Brillioun scattering or any other type of inelastic scattering method. You're just 'making up" connections that do not even exist!
I handed you folks 7 published papers that all claimed solar flares were associated with "electrical discharges', starting with Dungey. How is that a "tough" question even?
Why? It's only *one* kind of scattering!
Lost momentum results in a change in trajectory, so yes, it does cause blurring.
The loss in momentum is what causes the change in direction. They are one in the same.
According to relativity, photons are always travelling at c, correct?
So what is the speed of the photon after it collides with an electron?
So says the guy who thinks that there is a solid iron surface in the Sun.
You can't do the math?
Yes, but they can gain and lose momentum, and become blueshifted and redshifted as a result.
In order to lose momentum, they have to leave at a different trajectory.
Same speed, different wavelength.
And different trajectory.
Pure dodge. You two have no interest in resolving anything.
Perhaps we could resolve the melting point of Iron. Do you know what it is?
We could also go over the zeroeth law of thermodynamics. Do you understand that law?
Why should I limit myself to a *single* kind of inelastic scattering in the first place?
They all do the same thing, Michael. The change in momentum requires a change in trajectory.
You also have not shown that intergalactic plasma is even dense enough to interact with all of the photons passing through it. If there is enough plasma to redshift all of the photons from the nearest galaxies then you have a very serious problem because now we will have a plasma too dense to see distant galaxies as Elendur has discussed.
Plasmas are not transparent. They scatter light, and they do so in those oh so precious lab experiments that you go gaga over.
Michael, I think you missed my post again(though I might've missed your response, in that case I'd like a link)
Link to post:
#212
Loudmouth said:In order to lose momentum, they have to leave at a different trajectory.
Elendur said:Could you explain to me then, what is the controlling mechanism that returns the photons on course?
In order to lose momentum, they have to leave at a different trajectory.
Perhaps we could resolve the melting point of Iron. Do you know what it is?
We could also go over the zeroeth law of thermodynamics. Do you understand that law?
They all do the same thing, Michael. The change in momentum requires a change in trajectory.
You also have not shown that intergalactic plasma is even dense enough to interact with all of the photons passing through it.
If there is enough plasma to redshift all of the photons from the nearest galaxies then you have a very serious problem because now we will have a plasma too dense to see distant galaxies as Elendur has discussed.
Plasmas are not transparent. They scatter light, and they do so in those oh so precious lab experiments that you go gaga over.
Thanks.I haven't forgotten you, but has been a busy couple of weeks. Hopefully today I'll have some time to invest in researching a bit more about the various scattering methods.
I'll go along with it, not entirely content though (since it'll probably result in some additional backtracking in order to find where we might differ).It seems to me that the entire debate comes down to two basic claims:
The phenomena called "scattering" has its definition. That definition requires a change in trajectory in order to call it scattering.While this is (may be?) true of some types of scattering, it's not necessarily the case in *all* kinds of scattering. This is the first claim that warrants scrutiny IMO.
Great, if you're able to answer that question we'll be able to work from that. If you cannot, we'll have to backtrack some, but I believe that it'll be worth it.This is really the only other relevant issue IMO. While some photons will certainly never reach Earth, other photon can and do "bounce around" a bit and still reach us at Earth, albeit with some "blur", particularly at the greatest redshifts.
I'm *finally* catching up on Earth. Bear with me a bit, but I will tackle your post shortly.
Technically speaking that "crust" has a composition that depends on the phase of the Moon and what side of the bed you got up on. But your web site is very clear. The fantasy is that there is a solid iron ferrite surface in the Sun somewhere under the photosphere that ignorance about the Sun has lead you to think can be seen in images. The major ignorance is that you have no idea what photosphere means. It is where light is emitted from within the Sun so any plasma that emits light in the body of the Sun is inside the photosphere!That conversation is really better suited for the appropriate thread on Electric sun theory. Technically speaking the "crust" is composed of many elements, and the melting point of Carbon is around 4000K as I recall.
Any one with high school physics (second law of thermodynamics + temperature of the Sun) can see that Michael 's iron surface idea is a fantasy:
8th July 2009: Your hypothetical solid iron surface has been in thermal contact with at least one object that has consistently had a temperature large enough to vaporize iron for about 4.57 billion years.
17th April 2010: Why this iron crust thermodynamically impossible
17th April 2010: Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV
Once again your ignorance of solar physics is showingJust as the photosphere is cooler and thicker than the chromosphere, and the chromosphere is cooler and thicker than the corona, the plasma double layers under the photosphere are cooler and thicker than the predominantly Neon photosphere.
While this is (may be?) true of some types of scattering, it's not necessarily the case in *all* kinds of scattering. This is the first claim that warrants scrutiny IMO.
While some photons will certainly never reach Earth, other photon can and do "bounce around" a bit and still reach us at Earth, albeit with some "blur", particularly at the greatest redshifts.
That this rules out scattering as cosmological redshift is obvious.My calculations are really simple. But since you did not understand them, here in one is in baby steps:
Michael: Tired light theories predict no detectable redshift through scattering!
The defintion of mean free path gives that the transmission is
where l is the mean free path! Any problem with following the math or physics, Michael?
- Mean free path of a photon in the ICM is ~10 billion years.
- A 'slab' of the ICM between us and a galaxy x light years away will have the above transmission.
- A galaxy 10 billion light years away has a transmission of its intensity times 1/e so 37% of the photons do not scatter.
- We can detect light from galaxies that are further than 10 billion light years away.
- Thus we will see non-red-shifted spectral lines in galaxies up 10 billion light years away at least.
How do you *know* that is true for *all* types of inelastic scattering processes?
That's a rather "bold" and currently unsupported statement. How about demonstrating that point, inelastic scattering method by inelastic scattering method.
A lot depends on *exactly* which inelastic scattering method is most responsible for the redshift. I can't answer that question yet, but I'm looking into it.
Of all the inelastic scattering processes known, can you show a single example where a change in wavelength can occur with θ = 0?
Before saying which one is 'most responsible' perhaps you should try and show that any of them 'can be responsible' at all....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?