Will CO2 absorb photon in all directions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coriolis effect: "In physics, the Coriolis effect is a deflection of moving objects when they are viewed in a rotating reference frame."

So two conditions must be
1. A moving object
2. A rotating reference frame.

Earth's atmosphere rotates with Earth.
If there is no condition 1 then there is no Coriolis effect or wind.

If air masses begin to move, due to meteorological conditions (cyclone-anticyclone activity for example), and this movement is perpendicular to the Earth's equator(or has a component perpendicular to the Earth's equator), then we must take into account the Coriolis effect.
As movement is longer (perpendicular to the equator of Earth) the Coriolis effect is greater.
A poor wind (and would have remained poor if Earth would not rotate) becomes increasingly stronger as the movement (perpendicular to the equator)is longer.
 
Unless the atmosphere where, as a whole rotating "with" the planet, as opposed to the atmosphere being at rest and the planet spinning inside it, there would be ground level winds of 1000 mph, as that is about haw fast the earth spins. Since the winds cap out a a few hundred mph, one must assume that the atmosphere generally rotates with the planet. Not in lock step, the coroilis force and associated wind patterns demonstrate that, but enough so that the 1000 mph spin of the earth is matched to within a few hundred mph give or take, by the wind patterns.
I would go so far as to say, without the Sun shining on the planet (and no moon causing atmospheric tides) the whole atmosphere would match (in total lockstep) the rate of the Earth's rotation. Now once the effect of the Sun is introduced because the incident light is greater at the equator you get warming and the air rises commencing the Coriolis Effect. So one gets the sensation of wind when standing on the Earth surface, but otherwise it would be dead calm.
But I will have to eat my hat if Billy can show that the coriolis effect will cause a prograde super rotation, for there should always be a net balance between the east and west winds.
The challenge is his. :)
 
In the above I assume you mean relative to the earth, assuming the earth at rest, and the thermal speeds must be the vibration or bouncing off of one another, associated with heat, no? (as in the kinetic motion associated with heat.)

Since the earth has a circumference of about 24,000 miles and rotates once every 24 hours, at velocity at sea level of about 1000 mph.., the velocity of the Earth's atmosphere exceeds that of the earth itself give or take, what a few hundred mph?

If you were referring to wind or movement associated with thermal convention, there is even a greater disparity, as it is this that represents the give or take, a few hundred mph....
I was only guessing but have now looked here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html where you can put in the temperature and molecule mass and get the peak speed of the distrubution or the mean speed. For hydrogen molecule (AMU =2) and T =300 K (about room temperature the mean speed is 3986 miles per hour. So on Venus which is much hotter and with slower rotation (As I recal) my guess is not too bad. I.e thermal velocities are greater than rotational speeds, but it is wrong for Jupiter which is much colder and much larger with I think Higher rotational speed for the upper layers of the atmsphere, (I Thnik) Thus I width draw the argument that rotational speeds can be neglected compared to the thermal speeds.

The two main remaining agruments aginst sunlight driven winds are:
(1)That wind mechanism would act the same way at all latitudes. I quoted Robittybob1´s quote about Neptune telling it was exactly like Earth with equatorial prevailing wind retrograde and higher latitude they are prograde.
(2a) The sunlight is a continumium of wavelength so no matter what speed the molecule or atom has there is solar radiantion it can absorbe.
(2b) The non-UV passes thru most gasses with very little absorption and the atmosphere of Jupiter is mainly H2 (I think) which is very transparent to non-ionizing sunlight.

Summary: on Venus my origianal refutal based on high thermal velocites still hold I think and on Jupiter, where it probably does not, the H2 in the limbs simply lets the sunlight pass thru.

It is my bed time - perhaps more in the morining but may be someone with search and find what it the standard answer to high velocity winds on Venus & Jupiter. I still think only the Coriolis force acting on the mass flows associated with differentail heating driven velocities (energy redistribution by mas flow circulation cells from the equatorial regions towards the poles*) can explain the existence of both retrograde and prograde average wind directions.

* high altitude flows towards the poles and lower level flows from the poles towards the equator.

There is a third argument too:
Robittbob1 has it backwards. Sunlight being absorbed on the side of the planet rapidly moving away from the sun transfers LESS momentum to the atmosphere than on the side rapidly moving towards the sun. This is because the speed of light photons seen by moving away atom are "red shifted" - have less energy and momentum than the same photon being absorbed by atoms moving towards the approaching photons - I.e. for those absorbers the photon is "blue shifted" so gives the absorber both more energy and momentum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coriolis effect: "In physics, the Coriolis effect is a deflection of moving objects when they are viewed in a rotating reference frame."

So two conditions must be
1. A moving object
2. A rotating reference frame.

Earth's atmosphere rotates with Earth.
If there is no condition 1 then there is no Coriolis effect or wind.

If air masses begin to move, due to meteorological conditions (cyclone-anticyclone activity for example), and this movement is perpendicular to the Earth's equator(or has a component perpendicular to the Earth's equator), then we must take into account the Coriolis effect.
As movement is longer (perpendicular to the equator of Earth) the Coriolis effect is greater.
A poor wind (and would have remained poor if Earth would not rotate) becomes increasingly stronger as the movement (perpendicular to the equator)is longer.
Without looking at the link I would say:
1. The moving object is the air mass
2. Rotating reference frame is the Earth spinning on it's axis.

By perpendicular I take that to mean as far as the Earth is concerned is "to the North or to the South"
Rather than longer I would say "faster" so the movement is faster.
"the Coriolis effect is greater" - greater than what?

Whatever happens at ground level an opposite movement was happening higher up. Like if the wind is blowing easterly at the equatorial regions at ground level there would be matching volumes of air going westerly at higher altitudes. That is why they are called cells (Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar). :)
.
 
.....
There is a third argument too:
Robittbob1 has it backwards. Sunlight being absorbed on the side of the planet rapidly moving away from the sun transfers LESS momentum to the atmosphere than on the side rapidly moving towards the sun. This is because the speed of light photons seen by moving away atom are "red shifted" - have less energy and momentum than the same photon being absorbed by atoms moving towards the approaching photons - I.e. for those absorbers the photon is "blue shifted" so gives the absorber both more energy and momentum.
I thank you Billy for conceding one part of the argument.
But why I have truncated your quote was to focus on the "third argument", in which you have brought in what I would say is completely unproven science, but shows to me I've got you thinking of how these winds on Venus and Jupiter might happen. (Now to answer one of your questions it is unknown what causes Jupiter to spin as fast as it does and why the winds blow as fast. Do you think I would be going to all this trouble if it was known?)

Now to solve whether I have it backwards or you have it backwards, I suggest we run an experiment to prove it. Once we design the experiment we will get a University to test it; something like that. :)
 
I thank you Billy for conceding one part of the argument.
But why I have truncated your quote was to focus on the "third argument", in which you have brought in what I would say is completely unproven science, but shows to me I've got you thinking of how these winds on Venus and Jupiter might happen. (Now to answer one of your questions it is unknown what causes Jupiter to spin as fast as it does and why the winds blow as fast. Do you think I would be going to all this trouble if it was known?)

Now to solve whether I have it backwards or you have it backwards, I suggest we run an experiment to prove it. Once we design the experiment we will get a University to test it; something like that. :)


Hi again, guys. :)

Rbb1, perhaps I can point to something that might apply as you consider all the possible contributions to the 'energy budget' and 'net angular momentum' etc etc of the 'giant planets'.....

Just as our planet 'grew' via constant collision-bombardment 'accretion', the giant planets would have that factor/process magnified many times in quantity and frequency and energy (accelerated inwards by much greater graty well of giant planet).

Consider: Jupiter has and still is (remember Comet Schumaker-Levy?) accreting mass and rotational and heat energy from these impacts. I wonder how much heat/rotation energy came from all the collisions/accretions over the billions of years to now? Naturally, only the 'net resultant vector' of all the incoming matter/bodies would show up as net-net rotation of planet and atmosphere. But maybe frame-dragging by such massive planets will 'skew' the incoming trajectories towards more 'prograde' impact vectors (just as matter around black holes is 'skewed' into a prograde accretion disc 'inflow'? Just a thought.

That such rotational/energetic inputs must be very decisive in a planet's rotational state, one need only look at Uranus and its very different axial orientation which is supposed to have been the result of an early collision with planetoid(s)?


So perhaps a lot of the heat/angular-momentum energy needed to drive atmospheric dynamics may also come from such events/inputs whose heat/momentum contributions have not yet 'faded'?

And again, perhaps the giant planet's powwerful magnetic fields amy interact with the atmospheric dynamics to give the observed atmospheric layers/bands velocities.


It all adds up to some pretty complex and longstanding processes overall, guys, so good luck in getting a net-net 'answer' to your ponderings via experiments/observations! :)

Cheers, guys!


PS: Speaking of Uranus and its unusual axis orientation, Rbb1, since it's atmospheric prograde/retrograde flows are not nearly as often/as long at the 'square on' angles to the incoming solar radiation as with the other planets, how would that affect your hypothesis about the towards/away momentum transfer from photons to atmosphere? Or are planets so far from the sun not part of your hypothesized solar radiation impact on atmosphere because it's too weak? Just another thought. Gotta go!

.
 
Last edited:
Hi again, guys. :)

Rbb1, perhaps I can point to something that might apply as you consider all the possible contributions to the 'energy budget' and 'net angular momentum' etc etc of the 'giant planets'.....

Just as our planet 'grew' via constant collision-bombardment 'accretion', the giant planets would have that factor/process magnified many times in quantity and frequency and energy (accelerated inwards by much greater graty well of giant planet).

Consider: Jupiter has and still is (remember Comet Schumaker-Levy?) accreting mass and rotational and heat energy from these impacts. I wonder how much heat/rotation energy came from all the collisions/accretions over the billions of years to now? Naturally, only the 'net resultant vector' of all the incoming matter/bodies would show up as net-net rotation of planet and atmosphere. But maybe frame-dragging by such massive planets will 'skew' the incoming trajectories towards more 'prograde' impact vectors (just as matter around black holes is 'skewed' into a prograde accretion disc 'inflow'? Just a thought.

That such rotational/energetic inputs must be very decisive in a planet's rotational state, one need only look at Uranus and its very different axial orientation which is supposed to have been the result of an early collision with planetoid(s)?


So perhaps a lot of the heat/angular-momentum energy needed to drive atmospheric dynamics may also come from such events/inputs whose heat/momentum contributions have not yet 'faded'?

And again, perhaps the giant planet's powwerful magnetic fields amy interact with the atmospheric dynamics to give the observed atmospheric layers/bands velocities.


It all adds up to some pretty complex and longstanding processes overall, guys, so good luck in getting a net-net 'answer' to your ponderings via experiments/observations! :)

Cheers, guys!
.
We looked at this and it is not always additive, some collisions take away momentum as did the Shoemaker Levy 9 impact.

Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact on Jupiter - YouTube

The final analysis was a statement to the effect that there is far more momentum in Jupiter than can be accounted for during its formation.

You will all be surprised when we prove the planet is powered by the wind - as surprised as I was when I came to the same conclusion! We will wait and see if we can fathom it out before spending our money proving it.
:)
 
Reality Check
"PS: Speaking of Uranus and its unusual axis orientation, Rbb1, since it's atmospheric prograde/retrograde flows are not nearly as often/as long at the 'square on' angles to the incoming solar radiation as with the other planets, how would that affect your hypothesis about the towards/away momentum transfer from photons to atmosphere? Or are planets so far from the sun not part of your hypothesized solar radiation impact on atmosphere because it's too weak? Just another thought. Gotta go!
You added your edit after I quoted you and I thought quite a good post. - Hey I have not really thought about the further out planets that much, but I do suspect they are more recently formed and are still gravitationally compressing so you get a spin-up effect from the conservation of the mass as it compresses. A lot of material will be still accreting and adding angular momentum to them as well.
 
This is still one of my favourite clips ...
Take a moment and look at this picture. "This image was selected as picture of the day on the English Wikipedia for July 11, 2009."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:79...1M_reduced.gif

I had thread called Ram Jet and Global Warming - is the physics similar?
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112858 where I tried to liken the atmosphere on Jupiter to a ram jet - Thread got hijacked by Pincho RIP.
Post 38# I proposed a simple experiment "Experiment.
The design I have in mind is a straight 300 mm diameter pipe 2 meters long.
This has an electrical heating coil attached to it, (wound around it). It is then insulated so that the coil heats just the pipe.
An electrical current is passed through the cable and the tube can heat up.

A fan positioned at one end of the tube blows air through the pipe. A wind flow meter is at the other end measuring the outflow.

As the temperature of the tube heats up the wind flow meter will measure the changes in throughput. Hopefully heat is radiated or conducted to the air moving through the tube.
Do you think the wind flow meter will record an increase or a decrease in the wind flow speed proportional (or some relationship) to the temperature of the tube walls?

Or do you think the heating of the moving air will have no effect on the air flow speed.?

(It can't increase the volume unless the fan can blow warmed air quicker.)

Now if the fan was not working and the tube was absolutely level, the air in the tube would just heat up and some of it would be displaced. Cold air would enter both ends and as it warmed would rise and flow out at the tops of both ends. These would be described as convection currents.

Now no one would disagree with this would they? "

Would it work?
 
There were questions previously as to why the planets further out had different wind patterns to Venus and Jupiter.
Now i have been watching and thinking about this YouTube video on Hydrogen atom orbiting the earth and the effects of sunlight at 121.6 NM wavelength has on these atoms.
titled "Effects of Solar Radiation Pressure on Satellite Orbits"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVO42b7QLNM

Now it happens when atoms in the atmosphere absorbed photon and the electron jumps up an energy level, when the radiation is released it is released at random directions. This is therefore a form of radiation pressure.
As the planet turns the pressure on the side moving toward the Sun would therefore have the highest pressure and the atmosphere being dragged around the planet would slow. This is the same as have retrograde winds.
It is the opposite effect as when the infrared radiation is absorbed for in this case the momentum of the radiation stays in line with the IR photon.
You don't and can't get random direction scattering. Due to conservation of the linear momentum.
Watch it a few times and you might see what I'm on about.

(This is my initial analysis of the situation - criticisms welcome.) :)
 
Last edited:
I thank you Billy for conceding one part of the argument
I did not concede any part of either your original (It is IR absorption making prograde winds) or you new ideas (it is momentum transfer by solar photons striking the limbs of the planet, one moving towards and the other away form the sun) is correct.

I said that one of my three "proofs" that your new “sunlight on limbs of planet atmospheres idea” was not correct, but the others remain valid. (Only one is required to destroy your invented nonsense.) It was late so I had only guessed that the thermal velocities dominated the planet´s tangential gas mass movement, based on an old remembered fact few know: I.e. that your body is constantly being hit by millions of tiny molecular bullets every second which are traveling much faster than jet planes. I.e. most do not know that the air molecules are traveling at super sonic speeds, but I did.
...{Why} I have truncated your quote was to focus on the "third argument", in which you have brought in what I would say is completely unproven science,...
Now to solve whether I have it backwards or you have it backwards, I suggest we run an experiment to prove it. ...
I am not surprised that you would say that as almost everything you have stated is contradicted by extremely well known and proven physic. In vacuum, all frequencies of photons travel at the same "speed of light." However if the absorber is moving towards the source of the photons, it will get more energy and momentum by absorbing that photon that if it is moving away. I.e. For the absorber moving towards the photon the frequency is increased "Blue shifted". This fact needs no more experiment as it has been confirmed millions of times by astronomers. (They can give you a list of 10,000 stars that are "blue shifted" AND 10 MILLION stars that are red shifted. Most stars are red shifted as the universe is expanding so typically earth is moving away from most stars.)

If you were not so pitifully ignorant, of this and the many laboratory confirmations, you would not be suggesting contact with a university to test such well established physic. (BTW, one lab test has been mentioned in this thread already - the cooling to near absolute zero by laser knocking out of the trap all of atoms with not the correct red (or blue?) shift so that only atoms all traveling the same way remain. They have same kinetic energy but nearly zero random energy - that makes their temperature near 0 degrees K.)

Every spectral observation of the Doppler width of lines is also a confirmation of the fact that the frequency an observer or absorbers sees is increased for atoms moving towards the absorber and decreased for atoms moving away. Go ahead and send letter to some university suggesting test of the Doppler Effect and red/ blue shifts due to atomic or large scale motions - they would enjoy a good laugh at how ignorant some are. Last year´s Noble Prize in Physics was directly based on observation of the extreme red shift of the most distant light source known. (I made a thread about this as I think this award is very inconsistent with the quite specific instructions in Alfred’s will that the prize be given for things that directly benefit mankind.)

I will speak of Jupiter in my next post – cause of its winds is well understood (and must be correct as if not, conservation of energy would be violated.) and has nothing to do with absorption of sunlight in the limbs of Jupiter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“… Jupiter and the other gas planets have high velocity winds which are confined in wide bands of latitude. The winds blow in opposite directions in adjacent bands.… The bands have been known for some time on Jupiter, but the complex vortices in the boundary regions between the bands were first seen by Voyager. The data from the Galileo probe indicate that the winds are even faster than expected (more than 400 mph) and extend down into as far as the probe was able to observe; they may extend down thousands of kilometers into the interior. Jupiter's atmosphere was also found to be quite turbulent. This indicates that Jupiter's winds are driven in large part by its internal heat rather than from solar input as on Earth. ..." From: http://nineplanets.org/jupiter.html

Let me make understanding of the above easier for you:

For many decades Jupiter seemed to violate conservation of energy as it radiates back into space significantly more energy (~20% as I recall) that it can get from the sun, even if all the sunlight were absorbed. Jupiter is much hotter than thermal equilibrium with the solar radiation only would allow. It almost became a second minor sun.

When solar system was forming from a contracting gas cloud there was no sun but as mutual gravitation caused about 99% of the mass to collect where sun is and 1% to collect where Jupiter is, both heated up from the gravitational energy released as mass fell inward towards the local center of mass. This heating was enough to make thermal nuclear reaction start in the sun but not enough to do the same for Jupiter, which just got very hot (and still is cooling and contracting more, releasing lots of gravitational energy still). The hottest part of Jupiter is in the center and thermal energy flows towards the surface. I.e. there are strong thermal temperature gradients* deep inside Jupiter. Strong thermal gradient ALWAYS drive mass flows in gases – i.e. make winds. Quite possibly the strongest winds of Jupiter are deep inside it we don´t know as the Galileo probe could only see a few thousand Km deep into Jupiter.

SUMMARY: Why Jupiter has strong winds is well understood – no need for your unfounded and false ideas.

*Consider a set of concentric shells centered on the mass center of Jupiter, each T thick. One with bottom and top radii of r1 &r2 and the other much closer to the outer layers between radii R1 & R2. I.e. R2 -R1 = r2 –r1 = T.

The same thermal energy crosses both of these shells on it way to outer space. Assuming the thermal conductivity is the same (and it should be as Jupiter is 90% H2 and 10% He well mixed at least above the layer where the high pressure H2 is metalic) then the temperature difference across these “T thick” shells in inversely proportional to the square of their distance from the center of mass as the shell closer to the surface has much more area and thus does not need as high a thermal gradient across it for the same energy flow thru it. I.e. the thermal gradient across the shell closer to the center is (R2 / r2)^2 larger than across the shell near the surface.

The winds are made by thermal gradients.* If (R2/r2) = 5, then the winds, turbulence if you like, should be about 25 times stronger, more intense, in the deep inside shell than in the one closer to the surface. I.e. the strongest winds are where there is no sunlight! This is all good logic and physics but only confirmed by observation a thousand KM down into Jupiter as that is how far Galileo probe could measure.

The winds of Jupiter are driven by the release of gravitational energy, and caused by the mainly radial thermal gradients, not solar energy.

BTW, I am not good at searching as I seldom do that. (I rely instead on the huge volume of information stored in my memory during more than 55 years of reading about physics and efforts associate with getting a Ph.D. in physics.) None the less it took less than two minute to find the KNOWN cause of the winds of Jupiter. Again, you have resources available to you that Newton could not even dream of. – Why not use them to learn the facts instead of inventing nonsense? Are you just on some ego trip and unaware of how silly you are to proceed in such an ignorant state?

* The thermal gradient and Coriolis effect can make high and low presure regions. Then part of the wind is directly caused by the pressure gradients between these regions but fundamentally the origin is the thermal gradients. If the planet surface were all at the same temperature, there would be no high and low presure zones and no winds even if the planet is spinning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I won't say immediately that I agree with what you have debated, yet as I read it through, for the first time, there didn't seem to be obvious glaring mistakes, so I see a detailed rebuttal of my idea.

Obviously I would find it hard to respond in a detailed way using the "reply to the thread" window on the forum so I will have to work out how to manage a reply. I prefer to pick off single ideas in each post but with the complexity of this issue it will be more like writing an essay or even a book. :)

But when you bring in personal attacks like: "Why not use them to learn the facts instead of inventing nonsense? Are you just on some ego trip and unaware of how silly you are to proceed in such an ignorant state?" That makes me feel sick for if you think like this you are so wrong.

OK I have to set a goal otherwise a person would not do the study. Yes, I would like to be able to "solve" or discover some scientific fact before my time is up. So I am working from a common affirmative expression which would go something like; "if you put your heart and soul into it you can do it".

But having your heart ripped out sets one back a bit!
 
Last edited:
I do admit Jupiter is a complex beast and since the atmosphere is so thick and we can't tell what is going on it makes life difficult for all.

It was noted by one recent poster who pointed out that with gravitational compression the core of the planet will rotate faster than before as the angular momentum is conserved. It was argued then it should be that the winds would be retrograde as the core would be spinning faster than the upper atmosphere. It was a thought but how true that ultimately is, I'll have to think it through.

Billy would you like to tell me what you think is the situation on Venus? Maybe we should use Venus as the subject of the debate rather than Jupiter.

How do you feel about that? For I don't feel up to a strenuous debate at the moment.
 
... Yes, I would like to be able to "solve" or discover some scientific fact before my time is up. So I am working from a common affirmative expression which would go something like; "if you put your heart and soul into it you can do it". ...
Then thing for you "to do" is learn at least quantum physics and electromagnetic theory that Maxwell explained about a century ago.

Both are extremely well confirmed by experiment. Some predictions of quantum theory relating to frequencies, which can be very accurately measured (by counting cycles for intervals precisely set accurately by atomic clock) have shown agreement between theory and experiment to 13 decimal places!

Without even the knowledge of calculus you will never invent anything in physics confirmable to even one decimal place. A great deal has been learned and well confirmed about physic in the last 100 years. - There is nothing an amateur ignorant of this body of knowledge can add to it.

I am sorry if this reality smashes your dreams, but if you don´t want their nonsense smashed, keep them to your self, don´t post them.
... Billy would you like to tell me what you think is the situation on Venus? ...
No. I am not an expert on planetary atmospheres, don´t intend to become one, but am sure you can search and learn more than I know about the winds of Venus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
there are a multitude of things people suggest that I learn. My kids say programming language, I'd like to learn another language, and you suggest "quantum physics and electromagnetic theory".
Gosh and then there is everyday living and all that.

My interest is in the Earth really, so I will look at some of these others but I want to solve Genesis. Solve how it all started. :)
 
... - There is nothing an amateur ignorant of this body of knowledge can add to it.

This is blatantly false. As an example almost 50 years ago now, one of my sisters took a science project to the national competition, in Minneapolis. She did not win, which at that time may have been in part a reflection of her sex, rather than the project itself. A little over twenty years ago, two researchers looking into disease vectors on one of the Caribbean islands, published a paper identifying for the first time, several disease vectors, insect vectors and cited the basic idea as originating from that very science project, at the Minneapolis Science Fair. A science project from a high school student.

While it is unlikely that anyone considered a lay person, will ever in today's scientific community, be published..., it is not beyond reasonable potential that a lay person might have an idea or perspective that results in a change in perspective or the advancement of knowledge. All that is required is that the idea or perspective be picked up by someone with the social scientific credentials to pursue and publish....

This is as much an encouragement for the lay public to remain engaged in science, as it is a sad stamenet of what could be described as a shortfall, in the "social scientific" community of today.... If Einstein were a patent clerk in today's world, his work would not have been published...
 
there are a multitude of things people suggest that I learn. My kids say programming language, I'd like to learn another language, and you suggest "quantum physics and electromagnetic theory".
Gosh and then there is everyday living and all that. ...
I understand that - with wife and kids already you should leave Physics to those smarter than me who spend ~100% of their mental effort on it for years. I enjoyed being a "professional student" and only at about age 35 left the university as I decided to marry and needed a real job.

I would not think learning how to program computers would be the best choice. - Many thousand of very bright Indians are becoming experts in that every year and God only knows how many more Chinese are. All will be happy to work doing that at half the monthly pay you would need if in the USA.

If you have time for only one learning effort, make it learning Mandrin. My grandchildren are as the future belongs to China. If you can afford it, hire a Chinese, Mandrin speaking maid or cook to practice on/with but get some formal instruction too. In less than 4 years you could get job in China, paid by Western firm, to represent them.
 
This is blatantly false. As an example almost 50 years ago now, one of my sisters took a science project to the national competition, in Minneapolis. She did not win, which at that time may have been in part a reflection of her sex, rather than the project itself. A little over twenty years ago, two researchers looking into disease vectors on one of the Caribbean islands, published a paper identifying for the first time, several disease vectors, insect vectors and cited the basic idea as originating from that very science project, at the Minneapolis Science Fair. A science project from a high school student.

While it is unlikely that anyone considered a lay person, will ever in today's scientific community, be published..., it is not beyond reasonable potential that a lay person might have an idea or perspective that results in a change in perspective or the advancement of knowledge. All that is required is that the idea or perspective be picked up by someone with the social scientific credentials to pursue and publish....

This is as much an encouragement for the lay public to remain engaged in science, as it is a sad stamenet of what could be described as a shortfall, in the "social scientific" community of today.... If Einstein were a patent clerk in today's world, his work would not have been published...
Yes, I agree that in the field of biology (not part of physics IMHO) there are still some opportunities for one not an expert in the field as biology is now just where physic was at 1900 - I.e. starting to be understood. My remarks that there is nothing an amateur can add refered specifical to the body of knowledge called physics. Biology is a millions seemingly unrelated facts with few general princples that unify them still. For example once magnetic facts were known as a separate body of knowledge then along came Maxwell and unified them. Biology still needs many "maxwells" Or that may not be possible beyond the general priciples that are now known.

Hell I am only a "classical physics" person with some knowledge of quantum physic* but far too ignorant to do the highly mathematical physics that is the focus of physics today. I could once follow tensor equations, but can´t even read them now. (They have some very compact notational forms, such as sub script repeated imply sumation over them, etc.) I.e. to put into words what is said in a simple looking equation of five or six symbols usually would take a very long and detailed paragraph.

* For example I have derived the uncertainty princple for operators that do not "commute" under the Hamiltonian, etc. Most people do not understand that it applies to specific pairs of observables not to any pair. This is because they have been lead to believe that measurement of one thing necessarily distrubes the measurement of some other aspect of what it being observed - Do not understand that measurment limitations are not the basis of it - the uncertainty is a FUNDAMENTAL property of nature for certain pairs of observables.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top