Is T5 still one of the best choices in reef lighting.

[buruskeee]

It doesn't appear you understand metabolism. Recent findings challenge your attempt to oversimplify.

This peer-reviewed journal article on why a calorie is not a calorie, may enlighten you.

When a calorie is not just a calorie: Diet quality and timing as mediators of metabolism and healthy aging - PubMed

An epidemic of obesity has affected large portions of the world, increasing the risk of developing many different age-associated diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. In contrast with the prevailing notion that "a calorie is just a calorie," there are clear...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If a calorie is a calorie, just consume fructose calories and enjoy fatty liver disease.

Happy to review any recent peer-reviewed literature that align with your claims on PAR (and/or calories).

Did you even read that or just look at the title?

It talks about where the calories come from and how they are metabolized to become calories. A calorie is a measurement. It's not a physical thing like you're all trying to argue.

 

[Z Burn's Reefing]

The PAR meter is yet another fundamental miss on the whole argument. It can measure energy quantity, but not quality. If a photon from a LED was the same as a photon from a mercury light source, then measuring the entire thing would be important, not just the quantity.

Nicely said!

 

[buruskeee]

...so can we all agree that photon is a photon is just dumb?

Calories are not infinite or theoretical and they are too hard for this board.

No, because it's literally the quantum of the EM field. It's the most basic fundamental particle and the only way a "photon is different" is if it's a different frequency (ie specturm)

 

[Z Burn's Reefing]

Did you even read that or just look at the title?

It talks about where the calories come from and how they are metabolized to become calories. A calorie is a measurement. It's not a physical thing like you're all trying to argue.

I did read the full article last summer. Do you need the full text? If you don't have access, I can send it to you.

 

[buruskeee]

The PAR meter is yet another fundamental miss on the whole argument. It can measure energy quantity, but not quality. If a photon from a LED was the same as a photon from a mercury light source, then measuring the entire thing would be important, not just the quantity.

Nicely said!

Actually he's misinforming you again. If we're measuring exactly PAR only from 400nm wavelength, it's the exact same "quality" if it's the same quantity. There's literally nothing you can say to prove otherwise.

 

[buruskeee]

I did read the full article last summer. Do you need the full text? If you don't have access, I can send it to you.

Yes, prove how the end result, a calorie, is different. Not how that substance is metabolized and becomes a calorie, but the resulting calorie itself. Context matters. Calories are a measurement.

I mean it's already implied that's what going to be discussed in the rest of the title in that abstract (which I agree with BTW "you are what you eat" as the saying goes):

"When a calorie is not just a calorie: Diet quality and timing as mediators of metabolism and healthy aging"​

 

[jda]

LEDs are not lasers. Nobody said that they were. This is way dumbing it down to the point of being just dumb.

Instead of making people dumber, how about we make them smarter and not dumb things down, focus on what is important and not forget about all of the nuance.

Maybe the multi-PHDs that study quantums and photons can use your help if it is that simple. Probably a $1m nobel prize in it for you if you have it all figured out and they don't. My guess is that if your argument is similar to the 1s and 0s for LEDs, you won't get far.

If you want it to be simple, then say a wavelength, which is a tiny part of a photon... probably (the theory changes). The two are not synonyms.

 

[buruskeee]

LEDs are not lasers. Nobody said that they were. This is way dumbing it down to the point of being just dumb.

Instead of making people dumber, how about we make them smarter and not dumb things down, focus on what is important and not forget about all of the nuance.

Maybe the multi-PHDs that study quantums and photons can use your help if it is that simple. Probably a $1m nobel prize in it for you if you have it all figured out and they don't. My guess is that if your argument is similar to the 1s and 0s for LEDs, you won't get far.

If you want it to be simple, then say a wavelength, which is a tiny part of a photon... probably (the theory changes). The two are not synonyms.

Actually it's been said multiple times in this thread.

So now back to the "we don't know what we don't know" arguments (yet that conveniently disappears when claiming 100 PAR MH of the exact same spectrum is different from 100 PAR LED of the exact same spectrum). We can argue based on spectrum, that's fine and acceptable because they're not identical in spectrum, but the "quality of light" is fundamentally wrong.

Also you have it backwards, a photon is a tiny part of a wavelength, as the photon is the smallest particle that makes up the EM field.

 

[Z Burn's Reefing]

Yes, prove how the end result, a calorie, is different. Not how that substance is metabolized and becomes a calorie, but the resulting calorie itself. Context matters. Calories are a measurement.

I mean it's already implied that's what going to be discussed in the rest of the title in that abstract (which I agree with BTW "you are what you eat" as the saying goes):

"When a calorie is not just a calorie: Diet quality and timing as mediators of metabolism and healthy aging"​

ugh...I give up...there is no point...it doesn't appear you can even fake attempt to try and understand my perspective. Seems you're too worried on being right. Enjoy the weekend all!

 

[buruskeee]

ugh...I give up...there is no point...it doesn't appear you can even fake attempt to try and understand my perspective. Seems you're too worried on being right. Enjoy the weekend all!

I can understand the perspective if it's a straight forward analogy. I think you're failing to understand the fundamental point that a calorie is the end result. The saying "a calorie is not just a calorie" is based on what is being intake to the body and then metabolized, and how the body metabolizes such to turn them into calories (calories are released by the body and measured). Some stress the body more. My point is that the end result 'calorie' is a measurement in the same way that PAR (PPFD) is a measurement.

Am I saying I understand the science behind metabolisms and makeup of foods etc? No. But the end result of a calorie is universal and I understand exactly what a calorie is (the same way I understand what a joule is, watt is, etc). I'll also add that if you're talking about calories in food, then yes you are correct, they are different, but it's a WHOLE different context, because calories in food are not even calories yet, they're potential for calories in the context of the body and energy - we just call them calories for convenience. I may be completely wrong about it all and a calorie isn't a unit of measurement, it's not my field, but I haven't seen anything that says otherwise.

I'm not worried about being right, i'm worried about setting correct analogies to argue from. I actually would like to be given an argument that disproves what i've discussed so that I can learn something new (i love learning). All i did was point out that the premise you're trying to are with calories is wildly out of context of what you're trying to actually argue - the analogy doesn't work if it's not grounded around the same premise.

I hope I'm not irking you the wrong way. I feel this is all healthy debate that would lead to productivity, but I just want real content and not keep coming up with irrelevant analogies to grasp at trying to make an argument.

 

[jda]

I have some more that are not quite as stupid a photon is a photon.

All men are the same.
All women are the same.
A coral is a coral.
A reef tank is a reef tank.
All doctor is a doctor - like some don't learn more at med school.

The only sign of true intelligence is to know what you don't know. Not knowing that it is impossible to understand infinite things only exists as hubris. I had a world renowned physics professor that taught our Quantum Mechanics classes and he always said that he got accolades, grants and awards for not knowing anything.

 

[buruskeee]

I have some more that are not quite as stupid a photon is a photon.

All men are the same.
All women are the same.
A coral is a coral.
A reef tank is a reef tank.
All doctor is a doctor - like some don't learn more at med school.

The only sign of true intelligence is to know what you don't know. Not knowing that it is impossible to understand infinite things only exists as hubris. I had a world renowned physics professor that taught our Quantum Mechanics classes and he always said that he got accolades, grants and awards for not knowing anything.

What does any of this have to do with what we're discussing. Those comparisons are a huge fallacy. You're trying to conflate "all men are not the same" to "a photon is not a photon".

I see you avoided my question because it completely disrupts your arguments.

Please attempt to answer: how is 100 PAR MH of the exact same spectrum is different from 100 PAR LED of the exact same spectrum?

This whole debate stemmed from folks claiming that 100 PAR from MH is different from LEDs. I'm asking, if the spectrum is exactly the same, how can this be true? We don't need to be a prize winner to discuss, but i'll steal your deflection of using authority to disprove anyone - "you're not smarter than so-and-so, your argument is not valid".

 

[jda]

Please attempt to answer: how is 100 PAR MH of the exact same spectrum is different from 100 PAR LED of the exact same spectrum?

Nobody can do this because it does not exist. This gets closer to something that might be able to be discussed if you leave infinite and theoretical things like quantums out of it.

If you want to discuss "the ifs" with this, then can we leave PAR out of this and come up with a better thing to peruse over? PAR has nothing to do with photosynthesis and is really only a measure of human eyesight.

IF somebody was able to get the same spectrum from any light source, it would be the same, but...

All jokes aside, putting away the nonsense of photons and theory and stuff is what makes lights better. The advance of multicolored LEDs, wider spreads, better white diodes and diffusers have all after people have realized that "the ifs" were not cutting it. We need to stop with the stuff that does not matter, the stupidity of trying to say that infinite things are equal when nobody knows that they are (and not ask people to prove that they are not) and try and understand how to make things better, if that is required.

 

[buruskeee]

PAR has nothing to do with photosynthesis and is really only a measure of human eyesight.

PAR is literally specific to the photosynthetic range of the EM field and includes the UV and IR range, not just eyesight range. PAR stands for Photosynthetically Active Radiation lol. Now the PAR meters we commonly use in the hobby are typically limited to 400-700nm, but there are available sensors (from apogee) to use that go down to as low as 340 and high as 1040 (different application use but still measuring wavelength outputs per area per time).

Nobody can do this because it does not exist.

Actually we can do this. You can filter so only one specific wavelength is let through. Spoiler alert, if PAR from both technologies were the same, it would have the same exact effect on whatever is using that wavelength - because it's simply a wavelength. BTW, photons don't have mass. 1 photon from one light source is exactly identical to another because they are simply EM waves and to be different it would be a different frequency.

My point is that if LEDs were created to produce the exact same spectrum as MH (T5 actually doesn't put out the same spectrum as MH and this thread was supposed to discuss T5 vs LED, but morphed to MH truthers - T5 is actually much closer to LEDs), and PAR output and spread was exact same (lenses/reflectors dictate this), no one would notice any difference with corals growth.

We can argue what provides better spectrum all we want, but saying the quality of photons are different - yes I'll keep using photons because it's not like saying "the quality of human" or whatever false equivalency you try to mention - is a huge dis/misinformative statement. And no, I don't need a nobel prize to discuss photons. There's many textbooks to show what a photon is. I have a large background (worked as a SoC/ASIC engineer for a decade) in the EM field and physics and electronics, just because I didn't write an abstract on discovering the photon, doesn't mean I don't have a high understanding of it. If the argument is "you can't say that because we don't know what we don't know yet", then throw everything ever written about anything out the window because of the unknown - the Earth is a sphere? Sure all evidence proves that, but we really don't know a deeper discovery that might disprove that - so do not say the Earth is round!

If you're really trying to argue that 400nm from one light source is not the same as 400nm of another lightsource of the same exact intensity (I'll use this over PAR measurement to keep it more simple), then I don't know how we can debate as that's a universal truth. If it was not the same it wouldn't read as the same wavelength which would mean it would be at a different part of the spectrum. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.

BTW, I'm not trying to say I'm smarter than anyone here. In the contrary, you all probably have vast more knowledge about more things than I do, especially reefing. I do have a large background about this topic of EM field (not a nobel prize winner though) and relating topics because I had to understand them with the line of study I was in and have contributed a few products still being used by consumers today (one of which is the GPU block for the LG 4k Smart TVs - I designed the first iteration for that TV).

 

[jda]

I am going to try this one last time with different words and then I am out.

Do not try and have a light discussion by comparing infinite and theoretical particles to each other to make a hypothetical argument that light sources are the same.

People who truly understand quantums express them in probable/possible outcomes and never absolutes. Ever. They will bore you with superposition and theory and they are right. There was likely never two quantums ever the same, but nobody knows.

It is possible that somebody in your life used the term photon and you got some sort of idea about what it is that is oversimplified and stuff. This is likely no different than the oversimplification that you seem upset about with the term calorie.

This has nothing to do with theory, but I don't care about "the Ifs." I reef in the real world. I don't want others to see some stupid phrase like a "photon is a photon" and think that all lights are the same - I want the similarities, differences and nuance discussed and not boiled down into a single unhelpful phrase.

 

[delv2323]

What a bore. I think she's intentionally being obtuse.

Maybe the "laser LED's" have effected her mind.

 

[Hugster78]

Bet you guys are fun at parties

 

[buruskeee]

I am going to try this one last time with different words and then I am out.

Do not try and have a light discussion by comparing infinite and theoretical particles to each other to make a hypothetical argument that light sources are the same.

People who truly understand quantums express them in probable/possible outcomes and never absolutes. Ever. They will bore you with superposition and theory and they are right. There was likely never two quantums ever the same, but nobody knows.

It is possible that somebody in your life used the term photon and you got some sort of idea about what it is that is oversimplified and stuff. This is likely no different than the oversimplification that you seem upset about with the term calorie.

This has nothing to do with theory, but I don't care about "the Ifs." I reef in the real world. I don't want others to see some stupid phrase like a "photon is a photon" and think that all lights are the same - I want the similarities, differences and nuance discussed and not boiled down into a single unhelpful phrase.

So then you agree, that MH cannot be better than LEDs because no one understands how they work. After all, we're now implying quantum interference as seen with the double slit experiment as the implied reasoning of why any argument that is made against holding MH as superior is not valid.

A photon literally is a photon if it's the same wavelength. It cannot be the same wavelength if it were different. This is not debatable, so yes I can say a photon is a photon. This is the real world. This is the fundamental groundwork that needs to be set to discuss said nuance. If we can't agree to fundamental agreeable truths, there's nothing to discuss.

How about this - a 400nm wavelength is a 400nm wavelength. Does that difference in terminology that describe the exact same thing more suitable for you? Or is a 400nm wavelength not the same as another 400nm wavelength because of the "unknown"?

To use your argument - you aren't a nobel prize winner, so why should anything you say be valid? As far as we're both concerned, until you provide a nobel prize, your arguments are invalid.

This is getting ridiculous. I'm bowing out.

 

[buruskeee]

Bet you guys are fun at parties

Join the fun!

 

[buruskeee]

What a bore. I think she's intentionally being obtuse.

Maybe the "laser LED's" have effected her mind.

I'm sorry you don't understand the fundamentals of the EM field and therefore it's boring. We get you love MHs and T5s, but your inability to understand what the real differences is in the technologies are clouding your rationale. Funny you use the word obtuse, it's a perfect description.