@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Why do you insist on twisting all my words to make me look wrong? I don't. You are either phrasing badly or simply not understanding. Then you blame others in pointing out the problems in your postulates and lack of evidence. Or in the case here counter to the prevalent evidence. Quote: I'd report you to the admins but I'm just not that type of guy. I merely call a spade a spade. And I'm not the type of guy to call others names. Instead I've pointed it out, ignored it. And instead hope others will evolve to the point they can discuss topics rather then throw out cheap personal jabs.

I state things clearly and you add extra parameters or focus on a single point that by itself is not in the scope of the subject matter...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You also need to understand that photons never lose energy in a vacuum. Intensity diminishes with distance because certain photons fall off the path of the viewing source because of the angle they were emitted at. So at a distance you are viewing LESS PHOTONS, WHO'S INDIVIDUAL ENERGIES HAVEN'T CHANGED than at close up where more photons are absorbed by your viewing source.

Nimrod has been silent because he understands this and rather than say "Uh BrianK, Lou is right." He'd much rather remain silent.

Let me give you another clue into the strength of EM and 'gravity' and why they obey the inverse square law... At what rate do the # of photons diminish with distance? You'll love this.... ZOMG!!!! THE F'ING INVERSE SQUARE LAW! You see, the cross-sectional area of the sun shrinks with distance at that rate. A co-inky dink you say?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.................................... A co-inky dink.....yea that's it...that's the ticket...

Last edited by Lou on 31-May-2012 at 08:42 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 31-May-2012 at 08:31 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

I state things clearly and you add extra parameters or focus on a single point that by itself is not in the scope of the subject matter...

Good postulate. Evidence lacking, again.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I state things clearly and you add extra parameters or focus on a single point that by itself is not in the scope of the subject matter... Good postulate. Evidence disregarded, again.

Fixed that for you.

@Lou

Quote:

Fixed that for you.

Instead of trying to be all cutsey with language how about belling up the evidence? Clearly when # 2041 was but 2 lines you had leveled a postulated. And in #2041 you also failed to provide any supporting info whatsoever.

Quote:

You also need to understand that photons never lose energy in a vacuum.

This is a great example of Lou actually committing a Straw_Man. In no post did I state or imply photons lose energy. If you feel I did then belly up your evidence in what post did I ever say photon loses energy?

Quote:

Intensity diminishes with distance because certain photons fall off the path of the viewing source because of the angle they were emitted at.

Exactly. Which I'm glad you're starting to semi-understand. As I stated the overall energy remains constant (as you stated it was unimpeded) but the intensity of the energy is decreased because the space between the photons has increased.

Quote:

So at a distance you are viewing LESS PHOTONS

Certainly the reason you are viewing less photons is because the intensity of the EM has decreased. The ratio of energy (Newtons) to surface area (km*km) from the sun is less on Jupiter (.34) than it is on Mecury (43.3). There certainly is no change in inertia or energy of any single photon.

@Lou

Quote:

In your model, a single photon will expand to the size of the universe.

How do you work that out? Pleas at least make some attempt to learn to read what I have written. Here is a clue for you, and you dont need to buy it. "Individual photons have a consistent energy level. you simply intercept fewer of them at greater distances". The individual photons have an undiminished energy level, and therefore the same minuscule mass equivalence. Individual photons retain their energy density, or if you choose to treat them as particles they remain the same size. They are simply radiating outwards therefore fewer are intercepted at greater distances, and just as the increased distance the Earth is from the Sun in comparison to Venus reduces the amount of energy we recieve from the Sun, so also the amount of light we recieve from distand galaxies is reduced. The rate of reduction was postulated 325 years ago by an Englishman by the name of Newton, and although some of his work has been superseded my more accurate calculations, this one has not.
Quote:

Intensity is a measure of the amount of photons, not the energy levels of them.

Quite right, and the further away you are, the fewer photons you intercept. At distances of hundreds of light years there is so little light (so few photons) that light collectors (telescopes) must be used to increase the area of capture.

Quote:

You also need to understand that photons never lose energy in a vacuum. Intensity diminishes with distance because certain photons fall off the path of the viewing source because of the angle they were emitted at. So at a distance you are viewing LESS PHOTONS, WHO'S INDIVIDUAL ENERGIES HAVEN'T CHANGED than at close up where more photons are absorbed by your viewing source.

This is exactly what BrianK and I have been trying to tell you for tha last couple of pages, but you kept referring to your modelof the Sun as a laser beam focusing all of its energy at one spot, so that it can maintain a perpetually hig level of radiation pressure. It simply doesn't work like that.

Quote:

Nimrod has been silent because he understands this and rather than say "Uh BrianK, Lou is right." He'd much rather remain silent.

Actually Nimrod has been a bit quiet of late because Nimrod is busy designing a machine that you believe will never work because Nimrod doesn't understand maths, but customers are willing to pay a lot of money to Nimrods employer, because their machines are built, installed, and working, on time and within budget. The only mistake I can fault BrianK for is his mistaken belief that a complaint to the moderators will have produce effective result. I already tried, and it made no difference, and while I cannot honestly claim that I have never made a mistake, I never repeat a failed effort. As a result of this, I no longer anticipate courtesy or civilised attitudes from you.

Quote:

Let me give you another clue into the strength of EM and 'gravity' and why they obey the inverse square law...

please compare that statement with this one "So you see, while the gravitational effect can dwindle down to nothing, the solar pressure can remain fixed as long as the sun continues to emit light..." Now that you have come around to our way of thinking, please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes and claim that it is what you were saying all along.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Fixed that for you. Instead of trying to be all cutsey with language how about belling up the evidence? Clearly when # 2041 was but 2 lines you had leveled a postulated. And in #2041 you also failed to provide any supporting info whatsoever. Quote: You also need to understand that photons never lose energy in a vacuum. This is a great example of Lou actually committing a Straw_Man. In no post did I state or imply photons lose energy. If you feel I did then belly up your evidence in what post did I ever say photon loses energy? Quote: Intensity diminishes with distance because certain photons fall off the path of the viewing source because of the angle they were emitted at. Exactly. Which I'm glad you're starting to semi-understand. As I stated the overall energy remains constant (as you stated it was unimpeded) but the intensity of the energy is decreased because the space between the photons has increased. Quote: So at a distance you are viewing LESS PHOTONS Certainly the reason you are viewing less photons is because the intensity of the EM has decreased. The ratio of energy (Newtons) to surface area (km*km) from the sun is less on Jupiter (.34) than it is on Mecury (43.3). There certainly is no change in inertia or energy of any single photon.

Great, now what is gravity at distance infinity and what is the minimum about of photons that will hit the surface of those planets?

NEWS FLASH: THE AMOUNT THAT YOU CAN FIT IN THEIR CROSS-SECTION LIKE I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING! Meanwhile gravity is nothing.... Epic fail...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: In your model, a single photon will expand to the size of the universe. How do you work that out? Pleas at least make some attempt to learn to read what I have written. Here is a clue for you, and you dont need to buy it. "Individual photons have a consistent energy level. you simply intercept fewer of them at greater distances". The individual photons have an undiminished energy level, and therefore the same minuscule mass equivalence. Individual photons retain their energy density, or if you choose to treat them as particles they remain the same size. They are simply radiating outwards therefore fewer are intercepted at greater distances, and just as the increased distance the Earth is from the Sun in comparison to Venus reduces the amount of energy we recieve from the Sun, so also the amount of light we recieve from distand galaxies is reduced. The rate of reduction was postulated 325 years ago by an Englishman by the name of Newton, and although some of his work has been superseded my more accurate calculations, this one has not. Quote: Intensity is a measure of the amount of photons, not the energy levels of them. Quite right, and the further away you are, the fewer photons you intercept. At distances of hundreds of light years there is so little light (so few photons) that light collectors (telescopes) must be used to increase the area of capture. Quote: You also need to understand that photons never lose energy in a vacuum. Intensity diminishes with distance because certain photons fall off the path of the viewing source because of the angle they were emitted at. So at a distance you are viewing LESS PHOTONS, WHO'S INDIVIDUAL ENERGIES HAVEN'T CHANGED than at close up where more photons are absorbed by your viewing source. This is exactly what BrianK and I have been trying to tell you for tha last couple of pages, but you kept referring to your modelof the Sun as a laser beam focusing all of its energy at one spot, so that it can maintain a perpetually hig level of radiation pressure. It simply doesn't work like that. Quote: Nimrod has been silent because he understands this and rather than say "Uh BrianK, Lou is right." He'd much rather remain silent. Actually Nimrod has been a bit quiet of late because Nimrod is busy designing a machine that you believe will never work because Nimrod doesn't understand maths, but customers are willing to pay a lot of money to Nimrods employer, because their machines are built, installed, and working, on time and within budget. The only mistake I can fault BrianK for is his mistaken belief that a complaint to the moderators will have produce effective result. I already tried, and it made no difference, and while I cannot honestly claim that I have never made a mistake, I never repeat a failed effort. As a result of this, I no longer anticipate courtesy or civilised attitudes from you. Quote: Let me give you another clue into the strength of EM and 'gravity' and why they obey the inverse square law... please compare that statement with this one "So you see, while the gravitational effect can dwindle down to nothing, the solar pressure can remain fixed as long as the sun continues to emit light..." Now that you have come around to our way of thinking, please don't try to pull the wool over my eyes and claim that it is what you were saying all along.

It is what I've been saying all along, you nimrods are the ones who used the term "intensity" first, not me. My statement from the beginning is that Light will constantly push things apart long after gravity has fallen by the wayside, and I illustrated the minimum amount of photons that a light source can impress upon an absorbing body at any distance with my distance where as the strawmen were still working out WTF 'light intensity' is.

You strawmen are now finally coming to your senses.

Last edited by Lou on 01-Jun-2012 at 02:17 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

now what is gravity at distance infinity and what is the minimum about of photons that will hit the surface of those planets

First a quick simple answer and then a more complex explaination.

*Simple answer: Gravity is 0. Minimum amount of photons is 0.

**Complex Explaination: Let's call the emission of Gravity is (G). Let's call the emissions of photons in Radiative Pressure as (P). Now we've always agree that both travel at the speed of light. And recently you've agreed that both decrease via the inverse square of the distance travelled. So we can translate your question into formulas.
,Force of Gravity (FG) at an infinite distance is G/infiniti*infiniti
.Force of Radiative Pressure (RP) at an infinite distance is P/infiniti*infiniti
So what we see here is FG and RP both get infinitely small. Both gravity and radiative Pressure approach but never reach zero. And because the relationships are both reduced by the same amount (infiniti*infiniti) the relationship betwen the two is always constant at G:P. If an object emitions a larger Gravitiational than Radiative force then that's always the case. (Reread #1995 as this is what I said back then.)

In conclusion: the simple answer 0 isn't mathematically true. We use 0 for both because it's a convenient way to communicate such an infinitesimally small number.

Related note and further refinement: I'm glad you mentioned the particle photon as how you wanted to represent this. It makes a further explaination fairly easy. Remember Radiative Pressure? That can be viewed as a photon count within a given area. So we have this ever expanding sphere of photons that grows to infiniti. Which in turn means the distance between any two photons could be infinite. All we need then is for our surface of the planet to fit between those two photons. Something incredibly small in comparision (like for example Earth) would easily fit and never hit any single photon. You had asked what the minimum number of photons is and we can have the case of the surface of a planet that flies between all photons missing everything. Therefore 0 as stated earlier is the correct answer for photons.

Related note example: Go back to my balloon example. Put 100 dots on a balloon. Now instead of 4 breaths blow it up to 6feet. Now use a small surface like a pin on the balloon. There is clearly a lot of places you can fit that bit inbetween dots. A good example of how the minimum photons are again, ZERO.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Jun-2012 at 12:10 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Great, now what is gravity at distance infinity and what is the minimum about of photons that will hit the surface of those planets? NEWS FLASH: THE AMOUNT THAT YOU CAN FIT IN THEIR CROSS-SECTION LIKE I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING! Meanwhile gravity is nothing.... Epic fail...

Actually the number of photons that can fit the cross sectional area of the "target" is the maximum number of photons that will hit the "target". All others will miss.
The minimum number of photons that will hit the "target" is one.

As an example, I have a savings acount that has a maximum tax free savings sum of £30,000. The fact that it can hold £30,000 doesn't mean that it does hold £30,000 (unfortunately)

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Why do you keep coming up with artificial physical constructs instead of just imagining a ball of hydrogen undergoing fusion, sending photons into space more or less evenly?

Since photons are spread out over an ever expanding sphere and gravity is spread out over an ever expanding sphere, if gravity is larger at distance zero, gravity will still be larger at distance infinity. At close to infinity receiving photons becomes a game of statistics. You might get some, you might not. But on average, you get extremely few.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

You people are ridiculous.

I come up with artificial examples to illustrate a point.

Nimrod, you are again wrong. The point on a surface area can be hit by a photon, so the limit is the cross-sectional area of the surface * # photons what can occupy your units of measure for that area. Now the source it also emitting photons from all points so you have to multiply by that as well but again that just increases the #, I was only attempting to show a theoretical minimum.

So with distance, gravity approaches ZERO however the # of photons cannot approach ZERO as long as the source is constantly emitting.

You tried, like science-noobs, using typical shortcuts like 'intensity' when I was dealing directly with the photons only to come full circle and realize what I told you from the beginning. It has been painfully obvious that you continue to fail at applying all the concepts and look like highschool students trying to use shortcuts like 'intensity' not even realizing what it represents...

Now if you really want reality, you'd understand that light actually can't travel to infinity because it can't escape the 'gravity' of the universe. As an excersize, why don't you try mapping out the path of light emitted from the center of the universe and tell me what shape you get.

@Lou

Quote:

so the limit is the cross-sectional area of the surface * # photons what can occupy your units of measure for that area.

You are correct in labelling this as a limit, however it is not the bottom limit, it is the top limit, or maximum number of photons that can strike that object at any given time. The minimum number of photons to hit a surface area is one. It is for this reason that major telescopes have a large objective lens, or mirror, to gather light from a larger area and focus it to an area small enough to enter the human eye or camera lens. For the more detailed higher magnification pictures, the camera also uses extended exposure times to capture more photons in order to produce a visible image.
Quote:

Now the source it also emitting photons from all points

This is true but they are radiating outwards in all directions, not being directed towards one particular target. The maximum number of photons that can be emitted from an object is the cross-sectional area of the surface of that object x the number of photons that can occupy the unit of measure for that area. As the photons move out from the source, they do not expand, grow, breed, gain energy, or in an way increase from the original output. They are however spread across a larger area, and as a result the number of photons per square metre decreases until at some point it falls to below one thousand per square millimetre, then below one per square kilometre and so on until the number approaches zero, which it does do, despite your unevidenced assertions to the contrary. The net result of this is that gravity and EM spectrum energy diminishes at the same rate, and if the radiation pressure equals 0.00000000002% of the mass used to calculate gravitational attraction at a distance of ten light minutes, then it will equal 0.00000000002% of the mass used to calculate gravitational attraction at a distance of ten light years, or even a thousand light years.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

So with distance, gravity approaches ZERO however the # of photons cannot approach ZERO as long as the source is constantly emitting.

You are mixing up target and source. Indeed gravity approaches zero at the target. (NOTE: though never truly reaches zero.) Looking at number of photons from the emitting source is analyzing the photons not at contact with the target. Really your question relates to how many photons are within a given area and where does the target reside within that area. At infinite distance the number of photons striking over time is also infinitely small. Though we can't have part of a photon. So instead we say 0 photons is the minimum number possible.

Quote:

only to come full circle and realize what I told you from the beginning

Nice try to characterize your opponents arguements for them. Unfortunately this isn't true.


Quote:

Now if you really want reality, you'd understand that light actually can't travel to infinity because it can't escape the 'gravity' of the universe.

Well there are more than a few definitional problems to consider between the artifical 'LOUnyverse' and the real universe.

You stated something travels to infinity and hits an object in the LOUnyverse. In the real universe infinity is a distance and time not a point. In the real universe the choices would be something can travel for a very long distance which is less than infinity and hits an object OR something travels for infinity and never hits any objects.

Also - what does infinity mean in our universe.
* First we'd have to know if the universe itself would exist without end. If the universe ends. Then yes a photon cannot possibly travel to infinity. Which means in the real universe the relationship between G:P will always remain in effect. As such the flipping of photons to be greater than gravity (claimed for the LOUnyverse) can never truly exist.
* Second if the universe is without end then out we'd have to know if the universe is open or closed.
If the universe is open and is ever expanding (at least at the speed of light) the photon will never outrun the universe itself. So it could indeed travel for infinity. As the universe expands without end at a rate of c or above the photon traveling at c would never catch up and outrun the universe. It would, in theory, travel for infinity.
If the universe is closed and is static or expanding we'd need to know the shape of the universe. If the universe mapped back on itself - say a sphere or a cyclinder, traveling for infinity would be the path that circles the universe and never hits a thing.
... Again here are a couple of small problems would solve if a photon could really travel forever.

Though knowing these really doesn't help. Because traveling for infinity doesn't impart any force. Force is only imparted upon collision. And again in the real, not LOUnyverse, that collision is always significantly less than infinity.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So with distance, gravity approaches ZERO however the # of photons cannot approach ZERO as long as the source is constantly emitting. You are mixing up target and source. Indeed gravity approaches zero at the target. (NOTE: though never truly reaches zero.) Looking at number of photons from the emitting source is analyzing the photons not at contact with the target. Really your question relates to how many photons are within a given area and where does the target reside within that area. At infinite distance the number of photons striking over time is also infinitely small. Though we can't have part of a photon. So instead we say 0 photons is the minimum number possible. Quote: only to come full circle and realize what I told you from the beginning Nice try to characterize your opponents arguements for them. Unfortunately this isn't true. Quote: Now if you really want reality, you'd understand that light actually can't travel to infinity because it can't escape the 'gravity' of the universe. Well there are more than a few definitional problems to consider between the artifical 'LOUnyverse' and the real universe. You stated something travels to infinity and hits an object in the LOUnyverse. In the real universe infinity is a distance and time not a point. In the real universe the choices would be something can travel for a very long distance which is less than infinity and hits an object OR something travels for infinity and never hits any objects. Also - what does infinity mean in our universe. * First we'd have to know if the universe itself would exist without end. If the universe ends. Then yes a photon cannot possibly travel to infinity. Which means in the real universe the relationship between G:P will always remain in effect. As such the flipping of photons to be greater than gravity (claimed for the LOUnyverse) can never truly exist. * Second if the universe is without end then out we'd have to know if the universe is open or closed. If the universe is open and is ever expanding (at least at the speed of light) the photon will never outrun the universe itself. So it could indeed travel for infinity. As the universe expands without end at a rate of c or above the photon traveling at c would never catch up and outrun the universe. It would, in theory, travel for infinity. If the universe is closed and is static or expanding we'd need to know the shape of the universe. If the universe mapped back on itself - say a sphere or a cyclinder, traveling for infinity would be the path that circles the universe and never hits a thing. ... Again here are a couple of small problems would solve if a photon could really travel forever. Though knowing these really doesn't help. Because traveling for infinity doesn't impart any force. Force is only imparted upon collision. And again in the real, not LOUnyverse, that collision is always significantly less than infinity.

I'm suprised you didn't capitalize the NY there as well.

@Lou

Quote:

I'm suprised you didn't capitalize the NY there as well.

I did. The Vortex construct is a subset of possible 'closed and static or growing' universes that if existed for infinity would provide a photon an infinite path of travel with no collisons. In this case the photon is a force carrier but since there's no collisons it never transmits the force to another object. So such a photon is interesting to postulate but rather borining as it has no impact on the universe.

This will probably be a good series to follow
Questions that keep Astronomers Up at Night
#1 (as it should be) is doing the science on Dark Matter to see if we can verify the existence of such a thing. Not so surprisingly Scientists do accept that Theories aren't prefected and need work. It's this thrill of discovery that drives them into the fields of research.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: This will probably be a good series to follow Questions that keep Astronomers Up at Night #1 (as it should be) is doing the science on Dark Matter to see if we can verify the existence of such a thing. Not so surprisingly Scientists do accept that Theories aren't prefected and need work. It's this thrill of discovery that drives them into the fields of research.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428671.800-dark-matter-dark-energy-dark-magnetism.html

@Lou

Quote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428671.800-dark-matter-dark-energy-dark-magnetism.html

You may want to mention that an account is required to get this detail. The short version available appears to indicate a new postulate on how gravity could be magnetism. As always we welcome new ideas and their future new experiments and collaborating evidence to help determine what the true construction of the universe is.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428671.800-dark-matter-dark-energy-dark-magnetism.html You may want to mention that an account is required to get this detail. The short version available appears to indicate a new postulate on how gravity could be magnetism. As always we welcome new ideas and their future new experiments and collaborating evidence to help determine what the true construction of the universe is.

I mean hey, it's all GEM afterall...

@Lou

Quote:

I mean hey, it's all GEM afterall...

Again science welcomes all postulates and their evidencing. What is unwelcome is the leap of faith to make a conclusion when you don't have the evidence. Or, even worse, when the evidence is against the postulates. For example, Haramein's claim that the black hole at the center of the sun used by aliens driving earth sized planets to make hyperspace jumps, while the evidence is counter to a black hole sun and against aliens driving earth sized objects.