Merged New Developments in Fringe Science

Bishadi

Banned
B
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
2,279
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/feynman/10700.shtml



i was watching this BBC episod of Feynman and was surprised at his analogy. What is funny is how the process of storing is a progression versus a reduction of chemical energy.


He actually said that burning a log is like releasing 'stored sunlight'.

it is at the end in the 'fire' section

Thirteen threads have been merged into one. This was done because they all became the same topic quickly after the threads were started.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All energy on Earth can be traced back to sunlight (either our Sun or the stars that formed the nebula we formed from). Geologists have been saying that fossil fuels are solar energy for a long time. So what?
 
Ziggurat said:
That's true of fission, but not fusion.
Click to expand...
Okay, so MOST energy. 99.99999% or so. :p :D

Piscivore said:
Isn't fusion what sunlight is?
Click to expand...
Yes, but the small amounts of fusion we've generated ourselves doesn't count. It's using material from the Big Bang (or at least which hasn't been fused with anything in a star, anyway) to generate energy.
 
Last edited:
Piscivore said:
Isn't fusion what sunlight is?
Click to expand...
Yes, but the fissionable materials were manufactured in stars in the first place, so in this metaphorical sense are "stored [star]light" that can be "released." Although I guess the description also works for fusion as well, albeit in a very different (but no less metaphorphical) sense.
 
Bishadi said:
i was watching this BBC episod of Feynman and was surprised at his analogy. What is funny is how the process of storing is a progression versus a reduction of chemical energy.
Click to expand...

That biomass = stored sunlight notion has been around for years and years. Don't remember where I first heard it.

What's a progression of chemical energy?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That biomass = stored sunlight notion has been around for years and years. Don't remember where I first heard it.

What's a progression of chemical energy?
Click to expand...
How long till Bishadi's post of 'mass over em' and how wrong Einstein was with E = mc2...?
 
Mikemcc said:
How long till Bishadi's post of 'mass over em' and how wrong Einstein was with E = mc2...?
Click to expand...

Seems to be taking a while.

He's usually straight back in with an incomprehensible tract obliquely hinting that we're all dolts and that he sees a higher truth which researchers all over the world are now struggling to reveal.

Nothing for an hour. Not the usual M.O.

Maybe even he got bored.
 
You're missing two of his usual points: life abuses entropy and "the life of mass".
 
Vorpal said:
Yes, but the fissionable materials were manufactured in stars in the first place, so in this metaphorical sense are "stored [star]light" that can be "released." Although I guess the description also works for fusion as well, albeit in a very different (but no less metaphorphical) sense.
Click to expand...

Given that I don't think we are yet producing more energy from fusion than is put into creating it, it could be argued that we're still using stored sunlight to create slightly less sunlight. ;)
 
Feynman always makes me so sentimental. I get teary-eyed listening to him.

Thanks for the link.
 
Mikemcc said:
How long till Bishadi's post of 'mass over em' and how wrong Einstein was with E = mc2...?
Click to expand...



Let me correct you with the evolved version.... sunlight stored upon mass, kind of like the caloric of lavoisier and the 'fire' feynman was talking about.


What is neat is he aint talking about speed being the fire. (from the OT)

As for Einstein, he was honest but many afterwards who read his material become/became like bible thumpers who say "jesus is god'. Al, knew the work was not done but many dont even read.

Anyone even is capable of reading Einstein's work, would already know Einstein was not perfect nor was it complete.



But for any who observed the BBC link, go to the 3 and 4th episods of feynman and find he also, knew the electric and magnetic fields of em are what are the root to causal understanding.
 
Let me correct you with the evolved version.... sunlight stored upon mass,
Click to expand...
This is gibberish. The sunlight is used in photosynthesis to create molecules. When those molecules are broken down (either by arobic or by anarobic metabolic processes) they release their chemical potential energy. While the specifics get more complex, and the math certainly does, that's the basic concept driving all ecosystems which use photosynthesis as a base. This is well known, and needs no "evolved" version to explain it further. (As an aside, you are aware that evolution is not directional, aren't you? That's something you may want to consider.)
 
Dinwar said:
This is gibberish.
Click to expand...

It was an evolution from feynman, the god of science just after einstein....

shouldnt you be on your knees, rendering "Oh mighty feynman, nothing evolves beyond the accredited"

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen


The sunlight is used in photosynthesis to create molecules.
Click to expand...

Why not pass on the wavelength being CAPTURED (the fire upon the mass (feynman))........... ?

They call it the p680. A combining of mass to retain the 680nm wavelength of energy. (not some fast particle coliding with crap)

Are you aware of what photosythesis is?

photo=em (light)................. mmmmmm good!


When those molecules are broken down (either by arobic or by anarobic metabolic processes) they release their chemical potential energy.
Click to expand...
i am sorry.... the break down part is when the uneducated reduce the comprehension to their level

and the PROGRESSSION of COMBINING mass to maintain (sunlight) em upon mass is a growth.

Pretty much EXACTLY what the p680 process of photosythesis is.

So you are either conveying the reductionary ignorance, or willing to evolve and someday even exceed most any feynman (fine man).

i have hope that the kids will know but i am losing faith in the complacency of selfish men/women.

While the specifics get more complex, and the math certainly does, that's the basic concept driving all ecosystems which use photosynthesis as a base.
Click to expand...

i have personally opened up material to offer you an ability to comprehend 'energy upon mass' and specifically the p680 of photosythesis and you have the gahl to post that line?


geeze........

may i represent you represent the mind set of a creationist


This is well known, and needs no "evolved" version to explain it further. (As an aside, you are aware that evolution is not directional, aren't you? That's something you may want to consider.)
Click to expand...

another moving of the goal post i see.

why not just learn a bit before you get your feelings hurt when realizing your comprehension is evolving, whether you like it or not?

in many ways, i may actually enjoy reading of your humility
 
Bishadi said:
...the PROGRESSSION of COMBINING mass to maintain (sunlight) em upon mass is a growth.
Click to expand...

Since this is incomprehensible garbage, I think it is fair to say you have entirely failed to explain whatever you think it means in English. Therefore I suggest you try again using the universal language of mathematics, in the faint hope you may be able to make yourself clear that way.

So far I'm almost completely persuaded it's mere gibberish and there is nothing to explain.
 
I like Bishadi better than Pixie of keys.

Bishadi? May I ask, have you read Pixie of key's threads?
If so, what say yee?
 
Bishadi said:
It was an evolution from feynman, the god of science just after einstein....

shouldnt you be on your knees, rendering "Oh mighty feynman, nothing evolves beyond the accredited"

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen




Why not pass on the wavelength being CAPTURED (the fire upon the mass (feynman))........... ?

They call it the p680. A combining of mass to retain the 680nm wavelength of energy. (not some fast particle coliding with crap)

Are you aware of what photosythesis is?

photo=em (light)................. mmmmmm good!



i am sorry.... the break down part is when the uneducated reduce the comprehension to their level

and the PROGRESSSION of COMBINING mass to maintain (sunlight) em upon mass is a growth.

Pretty much EXACTLY what the p680 process of photosythesis is.

So you are either conveying the reductionary ignorance, or willing to evolve and someday even exceed most any feynman (fine man).

i have hope that the kids will know but i am losing faith in the complacency of selfish men/women.



i have personally opened up material to offer you an ability to comprehend 'energy upon mass' and specifically the p680 of photosythesis and you have the gahl to post that line?


geeze........

may i represent you represent the mind set of a creationist




another moving of the goal post i see.

why not just learn a bit before you get your feelings hurt when realizing your comprehension is evolving, whether you like it or not?

in many ways, i may actually enjoy reading of your humility
Click to expand...
Hopefully a number of persons here are quite familiar with what sunlight is and what photosynthesis. Given your inept (not an insult, a statement of condition) use of the English language I see no evidence that you follow either in any deep way. That's why I, IIRC, asked you multiple times in the past if English was your first language (I cannot see that as a possibility, given much of your phrasing).

My point is that until you develop the ability/demonstrate the ability to put together a reasonable number of sentences such as are sufficient to cogently express an idea, understandable, followed by another same, until you have completed one unit of discourse, then another, etc. and finally achieve a coherent whole that is meaningful, non-erratic, clear of misused/excess terminology and expressive of a meaningfull piece of explanation/definition/other complete point, we have no reason to take anything you write here seriously.

If, for example, you cannot clearly explain the connection between an extremely specific wavelength of light, photosynthesis and the fusion of atoms in the sun as it applies to whatever claim you think you are making then you are wasting our time and yours. And, if that were the case I would be forced to call troll. As would we all.
 
If, for example, you cannot clearly explain the connection between an extremely specific wavelength of light, photosynthesis and the fusion of atoms in the sun as it applies to whatever claim you think you are making then you are wasting our time and yours. And, if that were the case I would be forced to call troll. As would we all.
Click to expand...
Or just put him on "Ignore", like many people appear to have done. It's simpler that way.

It's the constant barage of insults that pushed me over the edge, to be honest. I mean, the only thing about his post that made any sense whatever are the points where he brags about how much better his is than me. If that's all he's got, he's not worth listening to.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's true of fission, but not fusion.
Click to expand...

No, that's not true of fission or geothermal energy(decay heat).

Actinides are made in super novas, during a brief moment when the neutron flux is so obscene as to push elements up against the neutron drip line(they very quickly beta decay, turning neutrons into protons and climbing the periodic table). Fusion only goes as far as iron-56 before it is energetically unfavourable.

To a romantic we are made of star dust; a pessimist would point out that another term for star dust would be radioactive waste(and it truly was extremely radioactive all those eons ago).
 
fuelair said:
Hopefully a number of persons here are quite familiar with what sunlight is and what photosynthesis.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately few in this arena comprehend what Photosynthesis is, does and the amount of material evidence within, especially the P680 that contradicts must of basis physics.

have you even read a little from wiki on the subject?


wiki Light to chemical energy
The two photosystems are protein complexes that absorb photons and are able to use this energy to create an electron transport chain. Photosystem I and II are very similar in structure and function. They use special proteins, called light-harvesting complexes, to absorb the photons with very high effectiveness. If a special pigment molecule in a photosynthetic reaction center absorbs a photon, an electron in this pigment attains the excited state and then is transferred to another molecule in the reaction center. This reaction, called photoinduced charge separation, is the start of the electron flow and is unique because it transforms light energy into chemical forms.

[edit] The light-harvesting system
A common misconception is that photosynthesis relies only on chlorophyll pigments. The truth is that photosynthesis would be rather inefficient using only chlorophyll molecules. Chlorophyll molecules absorb light only at specific wavelengths (see image). A large gap is present in the middle of the visible regions between approximately 450 and 650 nm. This gap corresponds to the peak of the solar spectrum, so failure to collect this light would constitute a considerable lost opportunity. That's why photosynthesis organisms have developed a light-harvesting system, which bundles different pigments to create a much wider absorption spectrum.



So from how a feynman claims with his own mouth, to the comprehension of one of the most abundant processes on earth (energy capture from the sun; photosynthesis), few really comprehend how it energy combines mass.

I am sorry you dont understand how life works.
Given your inept (not an insult, a statement of condition) use of the English language I see no evidence that you follow either in any deep way.
Click to expand...

seems you read from the peanut gallery rather than from me. Otherwise, you would already be on your way to perhaps even tackle the little things like abiogenesis or metabolisms.

My point is that until you develop the ability/demonstrate the ability to put together a reasonable number of sentences such as are sufficient to cogently express an idea,
Click to expand...


So if 'feynman claims a "fire" is just the release of 'stored sunlight', then what is so tuff about comprehending that energy is just em (sunlight) upon mass?
 
Dinwar said:
Or just put him on "Ignore", like many people appear to have done. It's simpler that way.

It's the constant barage of insults that pushed me over the edge, to be honest.
Click to expand...

i dont insult you.

You have insulted me based on your own complacency and then find that you dont know enough to debate intelligently on subject of science regarding life, energy, or even the p680 (basics).


This thread was rendering feynman making a claim that mirrored what i said practically from my first post.

So either, feynman died and came back to read these threads, or he combined more material prior to his death than you even thought to imagine; kind of like what any can do now with the internet.

i offer material evidence, (life; photonsynthesis) to sustain my claim (energy upon mass), and what do you do but rant?


i remember hammering the bohring analogy that renders the quantum jump too

but for some reason, you are too stubborn, simply because i am better looking than you.

(i didnt want to post that i was smaughter or that scientific integrity will crush the complacent)

I mean, the only thing about his post that made any sense whatever are the points where he brags about how much better his is than me. If that's all he's got, he's not worth listening to.
Click to expand...


then why do you fallow me around like a puppy dog picking up every crumb i drop?
 
sigh....I'd really like to communicate with you intellectually Bishadi, but it is really difficult when your arguments completely ignore basic logic.

I don't think you are the only one who goes on about manifestations of electromagnetism being the "base", "core", or "pure" form of energy. That's one whole topic on its own.

But then you keep spouting the "energy is just em upon mass" as if it is some massive revelation. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone understands what you are trying to say. Its as if you were yelling over and over "boenu oenuht, ,.rcmkr, ,r.c,n".

I don't think any one word in there makes sense except maybe "is".

* What is the "just" for? Would the phase "energy is em upon mass" be the same?

* em...ok electromagnetism...You are describing an interaction. It is way to general to just put 'em' here, you need to be more specific. If you replace em with another interaction, such as "energy is just gravitation upon mass" you can see how it doesn't make sense.

* upon. I assume you don't mean it in the positional or temporal sense, no? Do you mean it as an adverb or preposition? Do you mean "upon" as "in contact with", "supported by"? Before uttering this phrase again, lookup "upon" and choose which meaning you are intending.

* mass. A property of matter. How can something be "upon" a property of something? Are you sure you don't mean "matter" here? Or maybe baryonic matter?

* energy. And of course this doesn't fit because the right hand half of the statement is complete gibberish as shown above.

Look, we all know you are trying to communicate, and the core point of your communication seems to be that "energy is just em upon mass", but to everyone here it is complete and utter gibberish. Uttering it over and over again won't help. Its like speaking louder to someone who doesn't understand the words you are using. We don't have a tuff with your statement, we just don't have any clue what you are attempting to communicate with it.
 
Evilgiraffe said:
Because this,



is true, despite the scare quotes around the word fire. Whereas this,



is gibberish.
Click to expand...


if you do not comprehend what 'fire' is (em upon mass), then i can see why gibberish is your word of choice.

ie.. energy sure aint a speedy particle with a flashlight
 
RussDill said:
sigh....I'd really like to communicate with you intellectually Bishadi, but it is really difficult when your arguments completely ignore basic logic.

I don't think you are the only one who goes on about manifestations of electromagnetism being the "base", "core", or "pure" form of energy. That's one whole topic on its own.

But then you keep spouting the "energy is just em upon mass" as if it is some massive revelation. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone understands what you are trying to say. Its as if you were yelling over and over "boenu oenuht, ,.rcmkr, ,r.c,n".

I don't think any one word in there makes sense except maybe "is".

* What is the "just" for? Would the phase "energy is em upon mass" be the same?

* em...ok electromagnetism...You are describing an interaction. It is way to general to just put 'em' here, you need to be more specific. If you replace em with another interaction, such as "energy is just gravitation upon mass" you can see how it doesn't make sense.

* upon. I assume you don't mean it in the positional or temporal sense, no? Do you mean it as an adverb or preposition? Do you mean "upon" as "in contact with", "supported by"? Before uttering this phrase again, lookup "upon" and choose which meaning you are intending.

* mass. A property of matter. How can something be "upon" a property of something? Are you sure you don't mean "matter" here? Or maybe baryonic matter?

* energy. And of course this doesn't fit because the right hand half of the statement is complete gibberish as shown above.

Look, we all know you are trying to communicate, and the core point of your communication seems to be that "energy is just em upon mass", but to everyone here it is complete and utter gibberish. Uttering it over and over again won't help. Its like speaking louder to someone who doesn't understand the words you are using. We don't have a tuff with your statement, we just don't have any clue what you are attempting to communicate with it.
Click to expand...

i could not read the rest of your post because the gibberish is rampant.

The 'revelation' to comprehend how YOUR VERY LIFE works, is based on light.

So YES, in fact............... the scope is actually that real!

And the proof is easily found within the body of existing knowledge. Meaning you dont need me to comprehend the reality of it but it does take the true adherance to personal responsibility and the integrity of science to overcome the ignorance of the existing paradigm (to overcome the stupidity that energy is bound to 'h' (speed)).

Basically from the math of Planck, to the witnessing of evidence, to overcome takes the integrity of an actual scientific mind (seeking truth)

I have done the homework for over 3 decades and with an internet even you could exceed what many believe, if you choose!

look up milo wolff............ he is a mathematician who was friends with Feynman. I spent thankgiving with Him and his family in 06' as we addressed the benchmarks of energy together (i even held an original feynman text with hand written notes in my hands, does that make me holy?)
 
RussDill said:
sorry, make that "basic rules of logic" instead of just "basic logic". You may now continue reading the post.
Click to expand...

From the basics of bohr quantum jump, to the simple comments of feynman, thru raman, faraday, lavoisier, and then of evidence of a candle or even the p680........

logic already runs the show........ not the laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom