Bufofrog

It's just an analogy.  No analogies will completely describe the actual phenomena 

34 minutes ago, Coxy123 said:

If I have £1 in my  hand and do the equation £1*0 the answer is £1*0=£1 

No, it would be zero.

27 minutes ago, Coxy123 said:

A top of a mountain has snow because the atmosphere is less dense at altitude ,  therefore there is less atmospheric resistance ! 

Yes ?

No.

14 minutes ago, knowledgeispower917 said:

ok from my understanding, it is the belief that everything is made of vibrating energy including thoughts and people and like energy attracts like energy so positive thoughts attract positive experiences and negative thoughts attract negative experiences.

Boy, am I glad I didn't waste time watching the videos.

27 minutes ago, Romao Mota said:

The graphic 04 presented below represents the synthesis of “Shrinking Matter Theory with Variable Speed of Light”,

Two pseudoscience ideas merged into a super pseudoscience idea.  Cool....

1 hour ago, Genady said:

It does not. Not in QED, the best current theory.

Of course... [Slaps forehead]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The difference between how and why is how our technological civilization was formed, how is always important, why is often nothing but a subjective desire.

OK.

19 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The question was how not why.

Still not a problem.  I don't think there's an answer to that question.

It is the same as asking how does a positive charge attract a negative charge.  That type of question is more of a why than a how IMO.

22 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

that no one is looking into the problem.

There is no problem.  Why charge creates a field is not a physics problem.

2 hours ago, Rian00077 said:

For example,

If you could use some actual numbers for the masses and velocity in your example that would help me to understand what you are doing. 

Thanks.

4 hours ago, ahmet said:

if possible, could someone please give me an idea, on how much money should I want for licensing in case I get in touch with some corporations?

I'd say about a buck 3.80.

1 hour ago, Pyded Research said:

What does 1, a small number, + 1, another small number, form? 2, of course, and that is a bigger number. Just like 5 amateurs make a proffesional.

What?!?

It would be darker at night on average.

What do you think the effects would be?

2 minutes ago, kenny1999 said:

Or is there any superfood (that should be natural) that will potentially improve one's emotion?

No.  That being said a healthy diet is important for mental and physical health in general.  Your best option is to work with health professionals.

Good luck.

Just now, fiveworlds said:

White Men can be single fathers too

I know the poor persecuted white males in the US....

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

the ignorant lying sack of steaming monkey shit called Dr. Zakir Naik as a source. 

Don't hold back so much, tell us what you really think.  😁

19 minutes ago, eninn said:

So they undermine the clear proofs establishing that there is only one God and that His Messenger has brought the truth.

There is no proof or even any evidence that there is a god.

55 minutes ago, chrisa said:

I purchased a Acoustimeter AM-11 RF Meter and its picks up a reading of anything from 30 to over 100 microWatts  per square meter every 10 minutes. (sometimes it can go even higher) The reading lasts for about 2 seconds but its happens every 10 minutes at the exact same time. Due to health issues i am unable to leave my house much so am under constant "attack"

Those readings do not seem particularly high.  I doubt you are being purposely attacked because this level of exposure shouldn't cause any health concerns so it would be a pretty useless attack.

7 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I guess so,
 because my question
 "What is a field?"
 was NOT answered.

Oh no!  

It would be

just awful if

you had expend

a little effort

to look it up.

10 minutes ago, Capiert said:

100's of years ago,
 light's_speed was instant;
 til someone began
 trying to measure it.

Very good!  We 

did not use to

know the speed

of light.

23 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Was that "instant"
 an amount
 of time;
 or NO time?
(Descartes).

I don't know

what they (them) 

thought, what do

you think?.  (Descartes?)

20 minutes ago, Capiert said:

That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed).
It does leave me doubting a bit.
E.g.
You assume
 hitting the atom(s)
 dead on 0°
 at their center
 when measuring
 their reflected angle?
& with thermal motion.

How do you know?

That is surely bound
 to fail!

It's NO wonder
 your data
 does NOT (always) corelate
 with real sizes.

It's a MESS!

The only mess

is your laughable (humorous)

anti-science (stupid)

trolling attempts.

Your -69 rep 

points are very

much deserved.

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't know for certain but the statement and graph didn't seem to be in support of climate denial...quite the opposite, though I really should have directed my post more at Bufofrog.

I certainly may be misunderstanding the point of the graph.  If the point was that there is a linear relationship between the greenhouse gases and warming then my comment about the timeline was off the mark.

On 2/15/2024 at 3:56 PM, thidmir said:

almost linear. 

Anyone not understand?

Apparently you don't. 

The graph is only linear because the spacing of the years is not linear.  Look at the 20 year spacing between 2000 and 2020 then look at the spacing between 1884 and 1902.  The spacing is clearly not linear and this misleading graph gives the false impression that the temperature increase is linear.

Based on this apparently purposely misleading graph I would assume that this is from a climate denial site.

41 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I suspect I need
 a comparison
 of a field
 & a medium.

Then you need some work to do don't you.

42 minutes ago, Capiert said:

But I suspect
 you are implying
 that photons
 are (particles)
 too small to see.

Nope not saying that at all.  Most anti-science trolls have some knowledge about science, I guess you are the outlier.

44 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I have a big gulf (gorge)
 between
 talking about
 a wave_"length"
 e.g. 21 cm
 versus
 something
 as small
 as an optical photon.

Yes, that is because you have not spent any time to learn anything.  Photons can have a wave length of a kilometer, so you must think those photons are 1 km in size?  Maybe this will help the wavelength has nothing to do with the 'size' of a photon.

49 minutes ago, Capiert said:

It does NOT make sense.

Well if you can't understand it then we must immediately change all of our theories!

52 minutes ago, Capiert said:

If that is because it is NOT round
 then please describe
 this real particle's shape.
I.e. Photon.

I think I already said that a photon doesn't look like anything.  It makes no sense to think a photon looks like something.

54 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Naturally I have NOT co_related
 the photon's intensity
 to its size.

But why NOT?

Because that is nonsense.

9 minutes ago, Capiert said:

This (thread's) question
 is a real question
 expecting real answers.

As I said before, EM radiation and water waves are very different things.  A water wave is a disturbance in a medium.  Photons are not a disturbance in a medium, they are a disturbance in a field.

11 minutes ago, Capiert said:

If you have a (single) photon
 with a wavelength
 of 21 cm,
 what does it look like?

It doesn't look like anything, the question doesn't even make sense.

12 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Is it round like a ball?

No

14 minutes ago, Capiert said:

How big is it really?

Depends on what you mean by "really".

15 minutes ago, Capiert said:

E.g. what is its diameter?

It makes no sense to ask what it's diameter is.

16 minutes ago, Capiert said:

How do I co_relate its intensity
 to its (physical) size?

You don't.

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

As far as I know
 water_waves travel
 e.g. at c.

What is that supposed to mean?  Since you used e.g. which means 'for example', you are saying, "As far as I know water_waves travel [for example] at c."

No water waves don't travel at c.

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

How do you deal
 with low frequency RF?

EM radiation and water waves are very different things.  A water wave is a disturbance in a medium.  EM waves are not a disturbance in a medium, they are a disturbance in a field.