/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9561041
the shade isolates the water from the air you doofus, it has nothing to do with light. it would be the same if the two glasses were placed in a dark cabinet.

>>9561062
The shade was set up some 15 feet away. Not directly on the top of the glass.

>>9561062
I sort of expected /sci/ to just toss names around at me.

Is anyone here able to perform this experiment themselves? I'd be interested to see a third party try it.

>>9561041
Link the paper you moron

>>9561086
Ok, but you guys hate Miles Mathis so that sort of takes away the unbiased response I was after.

http://milesmathis.com/mooncool.pdf

>>9561090
A whole bunch of rambling. I couldn't even find the data. Is the difference enough to cover the error? I doubt it.

>>9561111
So that's one more /sci/entist giving up on the question. Thanks for your valuable time.

>I couldn't even find the data.
This is part of the problem, it's been hypothesized that moonlight causes cooling, but there really is no official data one way or the other. This question has been asked of science for many years now.

from the paper;

>Moonlight is always coming from the opposite direction of Sunlight. This alone is enough to flip it. It doesn't have to be flipped in some fancy process at the surface of the Moon. All it has to do is bounce. The Moon's light is automatically antiphotonic simply because it is coming from the left when the Sun is right. In fact, all light coming from the direction of the Moon is antiphotonic, simply because it is coming from that direction. The light from the planets and stars, when falling at night, is also antiphotonic. Which means. . . it doesn't matter if the Moon is up or not. We would get cooling from starlight and the planets, though not as much. For this reason, someone should have predicted long ago that Moonlight was cooling, and I am just dissappointed it wasn't me. I am getting to the party rather late, and I can only apologize by arriving with an explanation rather than a prediction. The explanation is that the opposing spins of those antiphotons at night tamp down the spins of the dominant photons in the field, causing cooling.

1/2

>>9561139
We don't even need photon-antiphoton collisions, since antiphotons will spin down anything and everything they hit. All ions and nuclei in the field will have been spun up previously by the dominant Solar photons, and will therefore be spinning left, say. So whatever the right-spinning antiphotons now hit, they will spin down. This spin down is an energy loss, and thereby a heat loss. This effect on Moonlight would be at a maximum at full Moon, but not only because that is when the reflected light is greatest. It is also important that light at that time is most antiphotonic. At full Moon, the Moon is directly opposite the Sun (or the most opposite it would be without being in Lunar eclipse).

In that position, we don't have to take any sines of angles, getting a reduction in opposition. In that case, the Moon is not “to the side” at all. For this reason, I can at least predict that the maximum cooling effect will be when the Moon is nearest Lunar eclipse without actually being eclipsed. No one else would think to predict that since they don't have my mechanics.

2/2

>>9561041
Op, you do realise MOONlight is exactly the same thing as SUNlight just with lower intensity r-right?

Armed with this newfound knowledge please take a swift noose to the throat as you clearly have disregarded the fact that photons are a type of electromagnetic wave (or particle if it is so inclined lol) and therefore INCREASE the total heat of a system, admittedly not by much, but water does block some light and must absorb it's energy.

>MOONLIGHT = SUNLIGHT = WARMING EFFECT = NECK YOURSELF

Look, I've even made a nice summarising greentext for you

>>9561139
>>9561141
This is almost all bullshit lmao

>>9561136
>it's been hypothesized that moonlight causes cooling
No it hasn't
>but there really is no official data one way or the other.
So run the experiment yourself.
>This question has been asked of science for many years now.
No it hasn't

>>9561149
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling

>>9561158
all of the answers from /sci/ have not been answers

>>9561149
>MOONlight is exactly the same thing as SUNlight

No it most definitely is not.

That's like saying the face in the mirror is you. It's only your reflection, not truly you.

>>9561165
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling
Here's a quote from that article mr smarty pants

"Using the electromagnetic trap to contain the Magnesium ions, they bombarded them with a laser barely out of phase from the resonant frequency of the atoms"

Good luck finding visible light or IR with a frequency ANYWHERE NEAR that of the resonant frequency of a water molecule BTFO

>>9561176
Do you know what photons are m'lad?
Okay, now do you understand how the moon reflects them from the sun?

>inb4 they changed somehow because muh astrology BS

>>9561139
"Antiphotonic" is gibberish. Technobabble.

Things cool off at night because they're radiating heat into interstellar space and getting practically nothing back. The heat from the Moon is trivial.
The shade may interfere with the radiative process, at least slightly, or it may alter air currents. If you want real cold you need still air. Otherwise the cooled air above the glass is replaced by warm air. You use baffles, like the compartments of an ice cube tray.

A fair comparison would be no moon in the sky vs. a new moon. Both ways, there's no moonlight and no shade needed.

>>9561163
>So run the experiment yourself.
I plan on it now, I assumed /sci/ would be able to debunk this without me having to buy thermometers.

>>9561176
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-moonlight-reduce-temperature

Please read the first answer here

>>9561139
Top kek

>>9561181
Photons are spinning.
This I know.
Real physical spin.

>>9561187
>I assumed /sci/ would be able to debunk this without me having to buy thermometers.

Then how tf they gon do that boy? With an equation perhaps>

>>9561191
yeah man, photons spin
therefore the spin must somehow impart a magical cooling effect
I'd sarcastically clap for you, but that's giving you too much credit

>>9561189
If you like that one good sir, I suggest you read up on his atomic theory.

http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf

>>9561197
it's not magic, it's simple mechanics

spin = energy = heat

the opposing spins of a photon colliding with a photon from the same source reflected back will cause the spins to "tamp each other down" thereby causing a cooling effect.

>>9561191
>>9561206
Particles don't actually spin you idiot. Just look up on YouTube what quantum spin actually is.

>>9561182
>"Antiphotonic" is gibberish. Technobabble.
Antiphotonic is used to describe photons with opposing spin to the local system of photons.

>>9561206
Tell me then, is the moon heated by the sun?

>the opposing spins of a photon colliding with a photon
AHAHAHAHHAAHAHA MEGA FAGGOT CONFIRMED GUYS
Get a load of this guy

>>9561208
That's about when I stop trying to talk to "scientists"

Particles do actually spin. They do not have flavor though I'd say.

>>9561213
>Tell me then, is the moon heated by the sun?
I will tell you. Yes, the moon is heated by the sun. Not all of the sunlight heats the moon however, some of it "reflects" and shines on us here on Earth or just off into space.

>>9561139
>Moonlight is always coming from the opposite direction of Sunlight.
the first sentence is already a lie

>>9561210
If you think colliding photons with opposed spins somehow cancels energy, you don't know very much.
If energy disappeared, where would it go? It's a conserved quantity (though it can be converted into mass.)
Two photons just pass right through each other and go on their merry ways unaffected. There's no "anti-energy"..

>>9561075


this is so silly. so the two glasses were at different spots. two different temps.

>>9561215
>Particles do actually spin.
Prove it. You can't. Now look up what spin actually is and admit you were retarded and learned something today.

>>9561213
You're gonna love this post.

Photon spin is the mechanism behind magnetism.

>>9561221
Okay, so we've established that to sun can heat the earth (during the day) and that the sun can heat the moon.

So when these spinning photons hit the moon and get reflected back to us they have opposite spins and somehow cool down objects? (lol, no)

Right, okay so how to photo-voltaic cells still function at night? And how do we take photos of the moon if all of these photons are cooling us down, surely our cameras would FREEZE solid with all this long exposure photography going on?

>>9561198
Teenage philosopher tier.

>>9561236
please see
>>9561009

>>9561233
You assume I don't understand what feynman taught, when in reality I am saying he was wrong.

Subatomic particles do spin.

What's next, do I hear a "Shut up and calculate." coming from the faggots?

>>9561247
>Subatomic particles do spin.
Prove it. You can't.

>>9561245
>Gravity is bent spacetime

spacetime is not real and cannot bend
space real, not bendable though
time real, also not bendable

also using light as a clock and ruler is fucking retarded

>>9561255

>>9561255
prove that they do not spin

you also cannot

>>9561041
the glass in moonlight is cooler because it could radiate it's heat to space. The one under the shade could not. Wow it's heat transfer 101. Did you know that people can die of hypothermia when it is 20 degrees C outside? If you get naked on a clear night, you can die of hypothermia because you radiate all your heat to space.

>>9561258
>spacetime is not real and cannot bend
Proof? Nah, just give me an equation and i'll be happy, better yet give me a counter example from one of Einstein's, should be simple for a genius like you.
And btw you are doing a great job trolling, congrats. I can keep this up all day lad.

Just please explain to me how the photons reflected from the moon can possibly cool the water on earth by means of a particle spin.

>>9561245
Exactly.
You travel along side-by-side with a moving electron. It has an electric field (lines sticking out radially) but no magnetic field.
Slow down a little so the electric has relative motion. Suddenly it HAS a magnetic field.
Where did it come from? You didn't do anything to the electron.
Magnetic fields are an illusion. Which is not to say they don't have effects.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38151/does-special-relativity-make-magnetic-fields-irrelevant

>>9561267
You don't know what a wave function is, brainlet go study a physics textbook

>>9561272
Right, but these spins can decrease the total heat content of a system, how exactly?

>>9561267
Proved it. Particle spin can't be actually spinning.

>>9561271
read the paper I linked and the others that are linked within it

>>9561275
It's not physical spin you fool, it's an intrinsic quantum state used to differentiate electrons when they are placed in shells.

>t. doesn't even atomic theory

>>9561283
Are you replying to the right person? You're repeating all the points I've been making.

>>9561277
see
>>9561225
Please stop being a faggot and accept that spin has no effect on the thermodynamic properties of a system.
Damn son, even your fancy schmansy article on laser cooling mentioned nothing about spins of photons. Ya think there might be a reason for that?

>>9561041
Whatever caused the shade also shielded the glass from the wind.

>>9561287
Oh shit i might not be :/
I think OP's retardation is rubbing off on me, sorry man, anywhoo he's been BTFO many times and still continues to troll

what could possibly be behind the wave? not a spin?

what about stacked spins? Can /sci/ even visualize a particle spinning about 3 axis' simultaneously?

>>9561283
lmao, electrons in shells, now it;'s all so clear thanks

The moon creates its own light, it doesn't reflect the sun's light that's fucking dumb. The sun is hot light and the moon is a cold light, it's what the yin/yang symbol represents.

>>9561296
yup lets troll right on over to photon channeling theory

>>9561314
what is this a picture of?

which way are these photons spinning?

>>9561317
hey can you provide me with a WP article of Photon Channeling? Oh, no sorry how about an independent and peer review scientific article? No, I guess you can't either

Case closed..

>>9561283
atomic theory it is

here is a picture of an alpha

>>9561314
>>9561317

The sun is just a big ball of gas on fire. Is this some electric universe bullshit?

But what does this have to do with the wavelength of Magenta?

Someone needs to do this but with moonlight and record the temperature of what it's shone on to shut these idiots up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFw7U7V1Hok

>>9561081
>Is anyone here able to perform this experiment themselves?
Would it really be that difficult for you to do it? You don't have some clear cups and two thermometers?

>>9561329
What is this shit?

>>9561360
the black discs are protons the green circles represent neutrons, it's the nucleus of helium, an electron on the poles. (too small to draw pic related)

protons are not actually bigger or discs, but their field is

the arrow represents the flow of energy through the atom


here is mercury

>>9561358

Already been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37y-MSBU6iY

>>9561376
>one trial
>shitty hand-held infrared thermometer
>counting for anything

If it cools things then i should be able to freeze stuff with a giant fresnel lens using moonlight ffs

>>9561376
posts flat earth video on /sci/ unironically

>>9561274
I didn't say anything about "decreased heat content"
You may be thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration
Some materials become warmer in a field because the field aligns the electron spins. You let normal heat transfer cool the material back to it's original temperature, then turn off the field and the temperature drops still further.

I think the lowest temperatures ever attained are through a similar method, but applied to the particles in the nucleus.

Nothing to do with the spin of moonlight.

>>9561400
the lens would distort the antiphotonic cooling nature of moonlight

>>9561191
point objects cannot spin

>>9561139

>>9561139
were any of this true it would be trivial to demonstrate in a lab. bounce a high-powered laser off a mirror and it should behave with the same "antiphotonic" behavior as moonlight, and should cool objects rather than heating them.

>>9561171
This guy >>9561149 answered it sufficiently.

Now we can just call you a moron.

I wont, because I am too polite, but there are plenty of others here.

>>9561413
objects can't be points

>>9561414
thank you

>>9561187
They have, you're just ignoring it.

>>9561419
photons dont have volume or rest mass, so they're not objects

>>9561419
that's like saying there can be no perfect circles.

if the radius is rational than the circumference is irrational and vice versa

>>the opposing spins of a photon colliding with a photon

See, physicists thought it would be cute to name something "spin," and now THIS shit happens.

>>9561400

There are lots of videos of people doing it. Do it yourself you lazy shit

>>9561422
^This.

Particles are just virtual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

>>9561425
well, the original name of spin did make sense. the quantum behavior of the particles was consistent with them having spin-imparted angular momentum

>>9561430
>The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.

>The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space, this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.

>Electromagnetic induction. This phenomenon transfers energy to and from a magnetic coil via a changing (electro)magnetic field.
The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.

>>9561432
>was
Implying it currently isn't?

the shade could have blocked the radiative effects of the unshaded glass

>>9561438
i was referring to the choice of name when the original experiment was performed. of course it's still true, but we're not constantly in the process of re-naming the phenomenon

>>9561406
>light isn't distorted by the atmosphere

sweet jesus

>>9561444
atmosphere is a globe-earth-science lie

>>9561444
That's one for /sci/

Maybe a lens will work after all, I'll have to try it.

>>9561405
>makes post about cooling effects of moonlight
>I didn't say anything about "decreased heat content"

>>9561405

>>9561041
>Can /sci/ prove or debunk this phenomena?
Yes, we debunked it already NOW FUCK OFF

>>9561453
Someone ELSE suggested "cooling effect"
Can't you read? (I mean "read English". You're doing very well if you're a Russian Troll working for the "Make America Stupid" movement.)

This thread reminds me of this picture.

>>9561463
Okay sorry :( I was making fun of OP btw sheesh not you

>>9561469
That's ok.

>>9561225
>the first sentence is already a lie

Be more charitable. It is in error.

>>9561262
SHUT THIS DOWN!

>>9561270
>If you get naked on a clear night, you can die of hypothermia because you radiate all your heat to space.

It would be some comfort to think of your radiated photons streaming off through space forever.

Whichever way they spin...

>>9561309
Boys, we being trolled.

>>9561344
Look ore closely. That is spinning the other way, and is obviously antimagenta.

>>9561400
You now remember the guy selling cold-focusing mirrors to keep samples in electron microscopes cold.

>>9561443
...but we're not constantly in the process of re-naming the phenomenon

You just wait until these guys start doing this shit with up, or charm.

You'll change you tune then.

>Did you know that when electrons, with a negative charge, are sent out in an AC system, when it alternates and goes the other way they become positively charged. If they hit you, they willmake you more optimistic.

>>9561081
I saw some video of a guy measure the temperatures outside in shaded and moonlit concrete.
Moonlit concrete was consistently cooler in multiple locations although there could be a ton of factors that play into this.
This isn't the vid I saw but it's the only one I could find
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_aQMvHSjrY

>>9561604
all charge is positive

>>9561571
>>9561262

Electrons and positrons are spinning, where would they get the energy to spin forever?

There may be something to this theory of spinning photons, I mean everything else is spinning, why would light be any different.

>>9561606
THE SHADE IS RADIATING KEEPING STUFF WARM.

>>9561623
"Spin forever" because they can't lose it.
It's an intrinsic property. It's quantized. You have 0, 1/2, 1, etc, depending on the type of particle.
It's not really "spin" as macroscopic objects have.

>>9561668
electron spin has been known to be real for decades see >>9561262

electron positron pair production

>>9561746
>>9561041
That's all cool and good but how does moonlight cool objects? What you are saying is that there are two species of photons, cooling ones and heating ones and i just don't agree with that. C'mon OP shed some LIGHT on the subject ayyyyy

>>9561754
see >>9561090

>>9561806
That's not scientifically proven. However, the WARMING effect of photons is proven.
BTFO once again.
Remember kids, the spin of a particle does not change its effect on the transfer of energy.

Maybe it emits less of its own heat in the form of photons by being in the shade?

After reading up about it, the absorption of photons increases temperature, so it not emitting as many photons would mean less loss of energy, which I presume, is being stored in the form of heat. I hope that satisfies your inquiry, OP.

>>9561830
My assumption's probably incorrect.

>>9561830
>Maybe it emits less of its own heat in the form of photons by being in the shade?
A glass of water (at a reasonable temperature) doesn't emit photons independently.

>>9561821
I thought you would read it. My mistake, sorry.

>>9561875
Oh I read it, in fact it made me laugh quite heartily. Come back to /sci/ when you understand the 1st law of thermodynamics you brainlet.

>>9561860
Well, it does technically... It emits IR but at the same rate it absorbs it. (just to be pedantic)
That's absolutely NOT proof of moonlight cooling however

Moonman Moonman, black lives matter.

>>9561914
This doesn't in any way violate the laws of energy. The heat isn't gone. It's just going from the glass in moonlight faster than the one in shade

>>9561932
Oh and that's not explainable by the fact that objects exposed to the cooling effects of unclouded skies will cool quicker than those in the shade? Hmmm okay then, i present to you occam's razor my friend.
The simplest explanation for the observed cooling (or quicker loss of heat) is that the heat simply radiates away quicker when exposed to open space.
I mean c'mon, if you think photons bouncing off each other and somehow taking away the kinetic energy of WATER IN A GLASS is feasible, then maybe you've gone past the point of help.

>>9561966
But anon, I also think that the antiphotonic Moonlight pulls the oceans and Sunlight pushes causing the tides. Not gravity.

I know I'm past the point of /sci/ helping me, but it doesn't mean I won't ask.

Perhaps threads like these will help other anons like myself who see the none physical nature of the current state of quantum ''physics.''

>>9562003
Why does the moon change these photons into antiphotons then chum? Do mirrors have the same effect?

Chirality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics)

Does this chirality of photons have any effect on the charge field emitted? Is negative charge left and postive charge right? Does that explain the attraction mechanically through the photonic field spin interactions? I think yes, I think OP is definitely heading somewhere with this whole chirality of light thing. Look at the black sun symbol from /pol/ spinning to the right... Did the ancient Aryans know all along?

>>9562008
Yes, but large scale, a big mirror in place where the moon is would do just fine. Locally no, a mirror or mirrors will not have the same effect using sunlight.

>>9562039
And is this spin measurable? What instrument can we use to determine photonic spin / the detection of antiphotons?

>>9562008
Mirrors, what about EVERYTHING else other than the moon?

What about rocks and sand and shit? Does all that sunlight reflecting off of sand, sea, etc. cool you down at the beach? Has it been reversed, or is the rock and sand on the moon magically the only rock and sand that does this?

Does the anti-spinning moon light get reversed again when it hits something else -- like various molecules of this and that, dust, clouds and shit in the atmosphere? If so, won't they get reversed and reversed again and again passing through the atmosphere?

Hell, passing through sun before starting on their way to the moon? Do you know how many times a photon will bounce around inside the sun, reflecting of the substance of the sun itself, before it escapes and heads out into space? There'd be zero chance they'd all be spinning the same way when they escaped, whatever they were when they were created. They'd be totally randomized.

And what about light that bounces off one rock on the moon and then another, and THEN heads for Earth? Is it re-reversed to regular sunlight, or is it reversed and then sped up to spin faster?

What about the light reflected off of the moon that was first reflected TO the moon from the Earth?

If I can heat stuff by hitting it with a bright light, can I cool it by bouncing the light off another surface first?

Maybe this "<(theory)>" needs to be thought through more.

>>9562071
Holy shit man, i just said mirrors in the hope OP would have no response, but christ you went the full nine yards, spanked his ass and made him pick up the dry cleaning.
>/thread
Gentlemen, consider the cooling effects of moonlight well and truly BTFO

>>9562062
I guess I'll have to invent it. So far water seems to be a good molecule to look into for reactions to antiphotons.

>>9562095
I'll add right now that aluminium is on my list as a good element to use in these experiments.

>>9562095
>I guess I'll have to invent it
Boi how the fuck you know these things exist if you A) can't measure their charge and B) can't even fucking find em anyway!

>>9562071
>>9562080

You both aren't seeing it though, these day to day reflections here are not directly anti-photonic like the moonlight would be, also these examples taking place during the day will be nullified by the overwhelming amount of light and heat around due to direct sunlight. It is at night that the effect will best show itself, and it's going to need to be a very high mirror to get anywhere near the right angle shift to match what the moon is doing.

>>9562101
Why, does aluminium give you false positive results too?

>>9562114
>The right angle shift
What? Oh so the ANGLE of photon reflection is what causes them to have an opposing spin, i get it. Why didn't you say this earlier, it all makes sense now

>>9562114
You still haven't answered why the moon has the oh so magical property of imparting spin on uncharged particles brah. Please address this.

>>9562129
a 180 degree bounce makes a photon an antiphoton, this at least is mainstream physics

>>9562135
why say uncharged particle when the particle is the charge carrier that is so confusing, my brainlet head hurts nao

the spin does not come from the moon, the spin is inherent to the particle as it is emitted from the sun, the reflection only changes the spin relative to it's own original spin

epic troll thread op

>>9562137
Uhh that's contrary to what you said earlier man. You said a mirror wouldn't recreate what the moon can do. Now you are saying that the independent variable is the angle of the reflection. Hmm, so which one is it?
Can I create antiphotons with a mirror or do I need a giant, inefficient fucking grey sphere in the sky?

>>9562143
Thanks I guess, but I honestly believe the things I say. I'm not trying to troll you.

>>9562141
Right, and this spin makes objects cool down faster when the photons collide with it?? Okay then.

>>9562147
Yes you can create them with a big mirror, in the sky.

>>9562154
Oof, my smile and optimism: gone
Yeah, I really don't give a fuck what you say at this point, energy carried by photons is not used to cool down water on a moonlit night its simply radiative cooling.

>>9562148
Try making a startup then, I'm sure you can find plenty of economical uses for this cooling effect of yours

>Garbage experiment produces nonsensical results.

The photons don't spin, it's the Earth that is spinning.

OP BTFO again

>>9562261
Fuck off, that's not how the solar system moves and you know it.

>>9562286
What do you mean? It's a drawing relative to say the center of the galaxy, each 360 around the spiral is 1 year.

>>9562137
Anon, do you know what an antiparticle is? It's a particle with its charge switched from positive to negative or vice versa; the mass and spin stay the same. Photons have no charge, and thus are functionally identical to antiphotons.

>>9562291
That's irrelevant. The galactic year is 250 million years.

>The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s) or 514,000 mph (143 mi/s) within its trajectory around the galactic center, that speed corresponds to approximately 1/1300 c.

>>9562297
That's what mainstream theory says it is, in my thread it has been described as
>>9561210
>Antiphotonic is used to describe photons with opposing spin to the local system of photons.

With the term spin obviously applying to real world classical spinning motion.

>>9562311
>With the term spin obviously applying to real world classical spinning motion.
Oh, obviously...

>>9561041

If the shade is big it reduces line of sight for the glass to radiate heat into the night sky, which is a big cause of cooling at night.

>>9562337
Yeah OP doesn't realise that in order to physically spin a photon you'd have to define it as not a point particle but rather as an object with a boundary and a surface, which would seriously fuck up everything we know about physics. I mean think about it, what the hell would photons be made of in that case? Elementary particles? Huh okay then that means you've violated the most basic concept of "it takes energy to move mass" because all photons would have mass YET STILL TRAVEL AT C

And I'm sorry OP but I trust Einstein's description of why objects with mass can't do that. Hell, even picking up an apple will tell you you can't move it at thr speed of light with a reasonable amount of force.

Oh and just incase OP had any standing ground left, he already admitted there is no conventional instrument to detect these "antiphotons" thus, the testable explanation behind his hypothesis is LITERALLY UN-PROVEABLE

>>9562756
>Yeah OP doesn't realise that in order to physically spin a photon you'd have to define it as not a point particle but rather as an object with a boundary and a surface, which would seriously fuck up everything we know about physics.

Point particles are not reality, they are just a mathematical tool.

from wiki;
>A point particle (ideal particle or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space. A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object.

>an idealization
>representation
>irrelevant in a given context
>from far enough away, any finite-size object will look and behave as a point-like object

I will say this only once. Points are in math, the real world has 0 zero dimension things in it. All particles are real with size, yes small, but not literally points, my point is, points aren't physically there, therefore not technically physics.

Archive of this thread, my boss is gonna love it lol.
https://archive.is/p6Km8

>>9561041
The shade will be warmer than the effective temperature of the night sky for radiation cooling and heating. Both cups will initially cool at equal rates from black body radiation loss, but the one with the shade will receive more radiation because its "sky" is warmer than the night sky, e.g. the shade emits more black body radiation than the night sky emits.
IIRC.

>>9561090
Ahahhaha, how is this even a paper, reads more like the ramblings of a lunatic thx for the laugh

>>9562916
>Point particles are not reality, they are just a mathematical tool.
>All particles are real with size, yes small, but not literally points
And you know this how?

>>9562930
Oof, OP got blown out of the water once again, nice work guys. Unless he disagrees with black body radiator kek

>>9563048
No one literally thinks particles are points. They are called "pointlike" for a reason.

>>9561139
holy hell this is funny