Will CO2 absorb photon in all directions?

[Robittybob1]

Venus winds are generated by the same processes as earth winds, so they also blow in all directions.

I have to agree and disagree.
The atmospheric make-up is vastly different.
The Earth has a Moon and Venus doesn't.

Do you agree there is a super rotation of the atmosphere on Venus and Earth (you beauty).
Both powered by the Sun.
Coriolis Effect plays a part in local wind strengths, especially well known on Earth, but minimally so on Venus since it has such a slow rotation.

 

[Emil]

The Earth is not a good example as we have a modest amount of atmosphere.
Not only that the Moon is taking momentum out of the Earth and by all likelihood out of the atmosphere as well. The two planets I'm looking at in particular are Venus and Jupiter.
Mars and Mercury have virtually no atmosphere so are not useful to the study.
If you helped me on this one I don't see any reason for not getting the Nobel Prize in Physics if we can prove it. That would be a boost to a career!

It is only a suggestion to increase your chance for a Nobel Prize.
Find something you can call dark. Dark wind , dark cloud or coriolis dark effect. ( dark photon absorbtion?)

 

[Robittybob1]

It is only a suggestion to increase your chance for a Nobel Prize.
Find something you can call dark. Dark wind , dark cloud or coriolis dark effect. ( dark photon absorbtion?)

That must be the first time you've said something brilliant!

 

[Believe]

I have to agree and disagree.
The atmospheric make-up is vastly different.
The Earth has a Moon and Venus doesn't.

Do you agree there is a super rotation of the atmosphere on Venus and Earth (you beauty).
Both powered by the Sun.
Coriolis Effect plays a part in local wind strengths, especially well known on Earth, but minimally so on Venus since it has such a slow rotation.

The corialis effect is due to the ROTATION OF EARTH, not the wind. Though the atmospheres are different it is still made of gas and all gas behaves similarly. If anything, the thickness of the gas would make it more difficult to move.

 

[Robittybob1]

The corialis effect is due to the ROTATION OF EARTH, not the wind. Though the atmospheres are different it is still made of gas and all gas behaves similarly. If anything, the thickness of the gas would make it more difficult to move.

CO2 and methane are greenhouse gas but the principle gases in our atmosphere are O2 and N2 which do not absorp Infrared radiation (IR) directly. So all gases are not the same.

Coriolis effect is due to the rotation of the planets, but one is very slowly turning (Venus has a Sidereal rotation period of −243.018 5 days) and the other Earth is once per day. So if the Coriolis Effect is due to the planet's spin rate you can see the Coriolis Effect is going to be minimal on Venus.

So there are significant differences to be taken into account.

 

[Believe]

CO2 and methane are greenhouse gas but the principle gases in our atmosphere are O2 and N2 which do not absorp Infrared radiation (IR) directly. So all gases are not the same.

Coriolis effect is due to the rotation of the planets, but one is very slowly turning (Venus has a Sidereal rotation period of −243.018 5 days) and the other Earth is once per day. So if the Coriolis Effect is due to the planet's spin rate you can see the Coriolis Effect is going to be minimal on Venus.

So there are significant differences to be taken into account.

The way gases spead out due to being heated is the same though. The way they get the heat doesn't matter as much. Whether it comes from IR radiation (directly heated) or through collisions (as in the ground heats up and then passes that heat to the air by the cool air literally colliding with the hot ground) the resulting motion is still random meaning that it in the end it will be the same in all directions.

Dude seriously, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but consider you came here looking for help, you've gotten it, and now you're actively trying to ignore it by throwing up roadblocks around every tiny detail. If you didn't want my help, you could have just said so.

 

[Robittybob1]

some of what you say is true and other parts show me you have not yet understood how IR heats the GHGs. It is not random.
If you want to help you may, but we are going to explain what is happening on Venus and there is going to be no short cuts.

 

[Believe]

some of what you say is true and other parts show me you have not yet understood how IR heats the GHGs. It is not random.
If you want to help you may, but we are going to explain what is happening on Venus and there is going to be no short cuts.

The directionality of the IR radiation is not random as it comes from the sun. The motion that is generation by the absortion of that radiation is however random. Again, don't just believe or doubt me read a book.

 

[Robittybob1]

The directionality of the IR radiation is not random as it comes from the sun. The motion that is generation by the absortion of that radiation is however random. Again, don't just believe or doubt me read a book.

We have already covered this bit. The momentum transferred from the IR has direction and hence is non random too. You might be thinking it is like an electron absorbing a photon, when the photon is re-radiated that is in a random direction.

 

[Believe]

We have already covered this bit. The momentum transferred from the IR has direction and hence is non random too. You might be thinking it is like an electron absorbing a photon, when the photon is re-radiated that is in a random direction.

IR is a photon, so it that is exactly what it is. The photon does not have inertia or mass, in otherwords it does not transfer its momentum to the molocule directly (which would impart directionality to it) because it doesn't really have any, it heats it up with a bit of it's orginal energy and the rest is re-radiated. This is why it is random. Collisions are also happening all the time with other atoms causing deflections. Think of it less like throwing a box of pingpong balls on the floor, and more like pingpong balls on a shake table. The motion is due to it shaking about and running into other atoms. Radiation does not impart motion directly. It is the side effect of being heated, rather then the cause of the heating in this case.

Think about this as an experiment. Lets say you have a game controller in your hand that rumbles or shakes. Turning up the shaking on that controller would be the equivilent of an atom absorbing in IR photon. You wouldn't expect it to suddenenly move in a direction away from the controler cord just because the signal (representing IR) came from that direction would you? It still just moves back and forth, only more violently.

 

[Robittybob1]

It is the transfer of the momentum which is crucial. Can you prove that the momentum in the photon is not conserved? That is the vital next step.

You made the claim that the photon doesn't have a directional momentum. Well it would be nice if you could prove that. Show me your reference please.

 

[Believe]

It has no mass so it has no real momentum but it does have a speed of C in a vacuum. This is considered common knowledge around here. Any source I could give you will be above your head (most of it is above mine) but here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

p=mv or momentum equals mass times velocity, since the mass of a photon is 0 the momentum is also zero, but it does have a speed of C or the speed of light.

Btw physics makes my head hurt, jerk

 

[Robittybob1]

There are whole sections in there discussing the momentum of a photon so what are you on about. Give me the quote that supports your contention.

 

[Believe]

There are whole sections in there discussing the momentum of a photon so what are you on about. Give me the quote that supports your contention.

Did you read the whole thing and understand every equation? I may not understand this part well enough to explain it to you. Look at the equations for the momentum of the photon, it has nothing to do with its weight, but its frequency and wavelength. In otherwords its not a physical push, but energy. A different type of momentum, in otherwords a different type of energy with different capabilities. It is as the difference between dropping a book and a spark of electricity (crude compairison but I hope it does the trick). They can technically have the same amount of energy but the way it can impart that energy on you is different (I.E. squish your foot vs. getting shock). Also, but your hand the stove one time.

 

[Robittybob1]

You might have to get a bit of study in if you want your degree. You seem to be making a lot of mistakes. What's this "different momentum". Something new and just for you?
I have gone through all those formulas. I have been working on this issue for a month or two.

 

[waitedavid137]

It has no mass so it has no real momentum but it does have a speed of C in a vacuum. This is considered common knowledge around here. Any source I could give you will be above your head (most of it is above mine) but here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

p=mv or momentum equals mass times velocity, since the mass of a photon is 0 the momentum is also zero, but it does have a speed of C or the speed of light.

Btw physics makes my head hurt, jerk

wiki is not a valid reference. A photon has both real momentum and zero mass.
p=mv is only valid for things that are moving much less than the speed of light which photons never do.

 

[Believe]

You might have to get a bit of study in if you want your degree. You seem to be making a lot of mistakes. What's this "different momentum". Something new and just for you?
I have gone through all those formulas. I have been working on this issue for a month or two.

Trust me dude, I am getting my degree just fine, chemistry != physics, I actually have a rather good gpa and I have been accepted into graduate school.

Like I said physics makes my head hurt. Chemistry is more about concepts and patterns then math (I deal with chemical equations), which I am good at.

However, why did thread sniper dude not answer if photos can directy impart momentum in a non-random fashion if he's so dam smart

 

[waitedavid137]

...However, why did thread sniper dude not answer if photos can directy impart momentum in a non-random fashion if he's so dam smart

If you're referring to me, this topic is 17 pages long and so I've only bothered to read over the last couple of posts. What is it you wanted to know exactly? Can several photons impart the same amount of momentum in the same direction? Yes, just consider a laser blast hitting something.

 

[Robittybob1]

Trust me dude, I am getting my degree just fine, chemistry != physics, I actually have a rather good gpa and I have been accepted into graduate school.

Like I said physics makes my head hurt. Chemistry is more about concepts and patterns then math (I deal with chemical equations), which I am good at.

However, why did thread sniper dude not answer if photos can directy impart momentum in a non-random fashion if he's so dam smart

Are you meaning David Waite? He is more like a mentor to me. He was backing me in a way. OK this part of physics is at the point of cross over between chemistry and physics. DW may not be really strong on the effects that we are going to explore. His strength is Relativity and this may not come into our discussion much. Maybe it will to some extent as light travel at relativistic speed, but the molecules they are interacting with are virtually stationary.

 

[Believe]

If you're referring to me, this topic is 17 pages long and so I've only bothered to read over the last couple of posts. What is it you wanted to know exactly? Can several photons impart the same amount of momentum in the same direction? Yes, just consider a laser blast hitting something.

? If you light a piece of paper on fire with an arctic spider laser it does not move until the fire starts suggesting that it is the molecules moving off the paper (fire) that imparts this motion, not the laser. Though it's not a super strong laser. A laser is also a bit different then IR from the sun since it is coherent.