swansont

It’s not opinion. Your idea is wildly incompatible with established physics. Shopping for a more credulous audience won’t change that.

It’s not a “discovery” as such. It’s a model based on tired light and varying fundamental constants, without the experimental support one needs to support those ideas. Not a good foundation for a model. The tone of the article suggests that this is somehow a credible experimental result, when it is very far from that.

Radiant heat. There is also conduction and convection. Planck was modeling the radiation spectrum, not the behavior of atoms in a solid. Copper is not transparent Photons disappear all the time. Ever turn off a light at night and notice how a room immediately gets dark? Both sethoflagos and I have pointed out that these photons don’t have enough energy to cause atomic excitations. You can’t just wish these reactions into existence What you think isn’t nearly as important as what you can show, both theoretically and experimentally. You talk of photons passing through materials like copper to transfer heat, when empirically we know copper is opaque. All you’ve done here is regurgitate some stuff from wikipedia. There’s no actual analysis to see if the claims are reasonable, and match up with what we observe. The thermal energy content of the copper in my example is around 1 kjoule. The blackbody photons average around 0.1 eV, meaning there need to be around 6 x 10^22 photons in existence at all times in the material. (this is not an emission rate, this is a population) But the block is only 1 cm on a side. A photon can travel, at most, 1 cm before it either is absorbed, or leaves the block. It takes less than 0.1 ns to travel that far. An atom has to be emitting 10^10 photons a second to have just one be existing at any given time. That’s an emission rate of 6 x 10^32 photons a sec for there to be a kilojoule of photon energy in the material Atoms near the surface are the ones that can have photons leave the material. If that’s only the monolayer at the surface. 10^16 atoms. Half will emit in a direction that leaves the material. That’s 10^38 photons a second. 10^18 watts. Slightly higher than what the Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts. Your idea doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s not even close.

Because you are presenting a pet theory of yours.

But the issue is the energy content. You’ve provided no analysis to show that the thermal energy of the object is from the photons. Just assertion.

Why should it be? The 2.75 W is dependent on the surface area. Show your work if you disagree. Thermal equilibrium means the surroundings are at 300K, and 2.75 W is also being absorbed. But that’s at the surface. The kilojoule is the thermal energy content (mass* specific heat capacity * temperature), not the radiated power. They are two different things. The radiated power will tend to reduce the thermal energy by reducing the temperature.

Not all that much. In copper it’s about 0.25 nm. Light would take ~10^-18 sec to traverse the distance If you had a block of copper, 0.01m on a side, it’s going to radiate 2.75 W at 300K At 4 atoms per nm, there will be 4 x 10^7 atoms along one dimension. 6 x 1.6 x^10^15 atoms on the surface, so perhaps 10^17 atoms near the surface can radiate outwards. at 300K, the photon energy peak is about 0.1 eV. 2.75 W needs about 2 x 10^20 of these photons per second. So each atom is responsible for about 200 photons/sec, or one every 5 milliseconds. But we know these photons can only live for a time that’s around 10^14 times shorter. These are estimations, so there might be a factor of 2 here and there that could be off. But you’re ~14 orders of magnitude short 1 cm^3 of copper is about 9g, so the block is somewhere around 10^23 atoms, or 2 x 10^25 photons/s for 10^-18 sec. 2 x 10^7 photons let’s call it 10^8, just to be safe, at 0.1 eV. Which is around 10^-12 J. Compare with the heat capacity of 0.385 J/gK, and we’re at 300K, so we have around a kilojoule of thermal energy in our 9g block. No, it’s not photons.

This discussion was originally about a solid, and my posts were in that context, but go ahead and calculate the amount of EM energy. The S-B law gives you the radiated power from a surface. What’s the surface area of the interior of a gas? How do you ger an energy content from it? If the inside of a solid material the system is at the same temperature, there is no net radiation. Any photon emitted is absorbed, and since c is a big number, the time between these events will be small

And there’s what we called the “not” filter when I was teaching. You tell them that something is not true, and they remember it as being true. They will swear up and down that that’s what you told them.

And you would be wrong.

Has it? You’re just asserting this. Why is American English different from British? We don’t have words and idioms with different meanings?

It’s big and massive, cold, and the distance from the sun means a reduced solar wind as compared to inner planets and moons. It’s also somewhat protected by Saturn’s magnetic field

But if the words have changed meaning, then the oratory has as well. How is that better?

No, it’s an issue of science So it seems you want to redefine “think” and dilute it to the point where it’s meaningless. True but irrelevant to the claim.

Seems to me this is something you could research. You might also discover how prevalent antibiotics prescriptions for children are, which would seem to be much more relevant.

Did I reference the title? I was referencing the question “Are we better off having invented the printing press?” that you asked in the OP. Which suggests that the topic is not about writing things down, but the ease of making multiple, identical copied of the written word. How easy was it to write things down 2400+ years ago, as opposed to recent times? Only written words can change meaning? Can you trace etymology with only an oral tradition?

As an aside, I have to wonder if the infertility issues getting worse is partly an artifact; infertility clinics cost money, so one wouldn’t expect people to go to a doctor unless they had the means to do something about it, which would increase as household income increased. IOW, we got better at diagnosing the problem, and reduced an economic bias.

Just saying so isn’t enough. Why are you sure? And let’s be clear about the numbers you use. What do 10% and 100% refer to? You have the fraction of antibiotics that cause issues, and the probability of the side effect. Considering how widespread antibiotic use is, most men will have taken more than one course, so the chance of being affected is somewhat higher than the simple product of the two. If the odds of being affected is random, then the chance of the effect is higher. If you take more than one course, there a chance you’re given a different antibiotic. The high number of prescriptions (there are areas of the US where it’s more than 1000 prescriptions per 1000 people) suggests that people are given multiple courses; presumably this is because one didn’t work and the doctor tried another one. Infertility issues predate antibiotics, so the baseline rate is not zero. But if the rate is now around 8%, then the combination of factors can’t possibly exceed that.

I think it would also depend on the vapor pressure of each; if the vapor reaches the equivalent of 100% humidity then you won’t get more evaporation.

Can you provide links to this advice?

No. Generally speaking thread closure is an action against the thread starter; if someone else misbehaves we try not to punish others. (an exception being if the original discussion has run its course and it’s all tangential discussion)

Dissolve?

You seemed pretty sure in the OP, but now we’ve seen that it’s likely not even at the 10% level + 50% chance. Remember, the number I cited was annual use. That means people are likely to get several courses of antibiotics over the years. If you have actual information to support an argument, go ahead and post it

You’ve not identified a ratio in the IQ graph, or a number on which to form one. If your reference is 100, the golden ratio would put a line at 161.8

Hard-wired responses to some stimulus are not evidence of thinking. It’s like that joke about a thermos - keeps hot things hot, and cold things cold. How does it know? (Must be thinking, right?) Neither math nor logic inherently ties to “reality” - what separates scientific theory is the requirement that it must agree with observation/experiment. IOW exponential growth or decay functions are part of math, but plenty of “reality” is not described by exponential functions.