00

Many features of quack science in the one statement. The deification of Maxwell, or his equations, whilst misrepresenting him. The concentration on bizarre notions of mathematical aesthetics at the expense of reality. And note the description of lights progress in direct contradiction to the notion of a volley of photons.

10

A basic misunderstanding of Maxwell, who was never so idiotic as to imagine that waves were possible without a medium.

10

Observable tracks of what? Is this where its alleged that a single electron can be responsible for an entire track of bubbles? Pseudo-science.

10

10

In objecting to abuses by the CAGW crowd, Graeme, one should avoid being led into the weeds of worse pseudoscience found in the ditch on the OTHER side of the road.

Photo-electric effect. Maxwell’s equations. Observable tracks showing energy conversion to matter, and vice-versa.

Now you can have the last word, though that, too, will fail to convince any actual Physics students on this list.

01

If you have waves moving at c, its clear that this is incompatible with a photon particle moving at c

A basic misunderstanding of a photon, which has no mass, and is described by Maxwell’s pair of wonderful partial differential equations, describing the perpendicular forces alternately destroying and rebuilding the other — one magnetic and the other electric — thus requiring no medium for travel. Back to school, Graeme. You’re not sounding like someone who actually studies the uniqueness of light, who has never seen the rather demonstrative photo of the track of a gamma ray — yeah, an actual photon — shooting into an intense magnetic field, thus disrupting its unique field pair, being destroyed while becoming a positron and an electron (illustrated by their opposite circular tracks in the field).

For your education: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/225048/gamma-ray

It would be helpful if you tried to sound a little less cocky when you are espousing things wrapped up in a rather century-old view of the world.

00

11

Its only public servants we are talking about. The iron law of the public service is to lock stupidity in. Often-times when they want to lock something really stupid in they shoot straight for Copenhagen.

“Einstein supported his theories with detailed physics, with testable predictions from the consequences of his work, with math. Graeme, by comparison, waves the woo. And hence will be taken as a crank by anyone with a scientific background.”

Now you are just being silly. Einsteins ideas are pure fantasy and fudge factors. He didn’t employ the scientific method. He injected mysticism into science. I just wonder where the source of all the hype came from. This fellow a media darling for some reason.

20

Oh my, I had missed this one. Graeme, you are delusional. Nothing more to be said.

01

Here is a perfect example of why people raising “2nd law” objections to the radiative greenhouse effect are not taken seriously. Photons were first described with Planck and Einstein’s 1900-1905 descriptions of the photoelectric effect, i.e. the quantization of electromagnetic energy. This has been repeatedly confirmed over the last 110 years, and is an underlying concept of physics. (I, in fact, work with photon counting devices on a daily basis, although I will _not_ put myself in the Einstein class). It’s a central concept of quantum mechanics, which has given us nuclear power and the H-Bomb, PET scans and two-photon confocal microscopes. Photons are a demonstrated and functional description of the world with well tested consequences.

Yet Graeme claims that the last 110 years of physics are wrong, that photons don’t exist, are “fantasy”. Absurd.

Einstein supported his theories with detailed physics, with testable predictions from the consequences of his work, with math. Graeme, by comparison, waves the woo. And hence will be taken as a crank by anyone with a scientific background.

Up your game, Graeme. Or you will (deservedly) be dismissed as delusional.

—

Note: If someone’s objections to the general thrust, consensus, of scientific opinion can be supported, I would love to see it. So would just about everyone else with a science background. But ridiculous BS contrary to all observations like “photons are a fantasy” will at best be ignored, and at worst lead to men in white coats and straight jackets…

00

But the concept of a photon also includes the photon taking off at the speed of c. Whereas a tsunami in no way implies that the water molecule moves as far or as fast as the wave itself. You must acknowledge that the photon, as advertised, simply doesn’t exist. This is not something to blame me about. It doesn’t exist as described. When the wave comes in to crash on the rocks, the molecules may be moving, at the speed of the wave, at the point of impact. But the concept of the photon is something entirely different. And you should be honest enough to admit that this photon is a fantasy.

01

Light is most certainly a fascinating subject, but even if we are still dealing with bone knives and bear skins in science, it doesn’t help to throw out a useful duality description just because you despise a radiative transfer idea.

The second law commands entropy not decrease without intervention (refrigerators work, after all, and even then by increasing energy at the power plant). S/B net radiative transfer does not violate that law: so-called “back radiation” is simply a reduction of the speed of cooling, and the warmer object is STILL cooling. The subject is covered in textbooks, described with the transfer of radiation between two blackbodies of the same temperature (ie, no net difference in emission).

It would be helpful if you looked at static model charts and realize that the dynamic reality is that the surface is never getting more than insolation provides, it just gets some of its own radiative emission back again, which only has the effect of slowing the cooling process.

Likewise, the return of IR to a hot liquid merely reduces the cooling rate: the mirroring is done because it works. That “back-radiation” is not a violation of the second law, either.

Lastly, it would be most accurate to discuss all atmospheric absorption and emission, instead of pinning the discussion on a minority player, CO2. It is water vapor that provides most of the gas effect, and liquid water
most of the reflective effect.

It’s obvious you don’t think much of the IPCC, or CAGW alarmists. Neither do I. But that doesn’t mean you can toss useful Physics out to get rid of ridiculous mis-applications of it. Keep the baby, toss the bathwater.

01

01

“There are no such things as photons capiche?”

Your new ‘theory’ will come as a big surprise to 99.999% of physics graduates since 1925.
When will the rest of the world come to see that you are the new Einstein

00