« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Down

Bendy light?

  • 263 Replies
  • 60095 Views
?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #120 on: January 26, 2010, 04:27:39 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on January 25, 2010, 11:49:00 PM
Quote from: markjo on January 25, 2010, 01:27:10 PM
Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?

Certainly. The radiation we observe directly is not coming from the Sun's source of power, whatever that may be. Rather, the energy is transferred to the outer layers (which, in my hypothesis, is a thin atmosphere made of the elements we observe in the Sun's absorption spectrum) and then released as (among other things) visible light. The Sun could therefore be expected to behave as a near-perfect black body with various absorption lines, something which observation agrees with quite well.

You're correct, but that doesn't necessarily support your hypothesis that the source of energy is quark-antiquark pair annihilation.  You haven't pointed out any evidence that supports your proposed source of energy.  In fact, pair annihilation wouldn't explain solar neutrinos, as ERTW pointed out.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=653
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 04:33:52 AM by cwolfe »
Logged
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #121 on: January 26, 2010, 05:07:43 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on January 25, 2010, 12:39:57 PM
As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.

Childrens experiments are real experiments, they're just simple enough for children to understand.

Children are taught measures to factor out experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and the "host of other things".

And yet you keep spamming this crap despite being told to stop by the mod team. Hmmmmm.
Logged
?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #122 on: January 26, 2010, 09:41:51 AM »
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 05:07:43 AM
Quote from: Parsifal on January 25, 2010, 12:39:57 PM
As I have pointed out numerous times, children's experiments are not real experiments. They fail to take into account experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and a host of other things which could influence the result. If you keep spamming this crap I will report your posts for having low content, and will not respond to them.

Childrens experiments are real experiments, they're just simple enough for children to understand.

Children are taught measures to factor out experimental uncertainty, uncontrolled variables and the "host of other things".

And yet you keep spamming this crap despite being told to stop by the mod team. Hmmmmm.
Seriously, if you are still trying to support your double holed card experiment please stop. My simple calculation about the level of accuracy needed to prove anything with this experiment shows that it is useless without some kind of nano-scale light measuring device (the number I calculated was 688nm for a 6m experiment). By looking at it with your eyes (which are good to about 0.01mm or 10 microns) you will not be able to see any difference between bendy light and straight light.
Logged
Don't diss physics until you try it!
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #123 on: January 26, 2010, 09:43:47 AM »
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 09:41:51 AM
(the number I calculated was 688nm for a 6m experiment).

Then don't perform the experiment over 6m.
Logged
?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #124 on: January 26, 2010, 09:45:30 AM »
Given that the speed of light has been measured over distances of several miles, the effect of light bending upward should have been pretty obvious.
Logged
?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #125 on: January 26, 2010, 09:52:18 AM »
What pray-tell is keeping the quarks free? It takes a vast energy density to stop quarks combining. If anything in a very large dense object they're more likely to from quark degenerate matter. Infact such as state of matter is the cause of a hypothetical star somewhere between a neutron star and a black hole. Quarks really really don't like to be on their own.
Logged
?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #126 on: January 26, 2010, 09:55:10 AM »
Infact while I think about it the entire field theory that makes the quark exist has relativity as a cornerstone. My bendy logic sensors are all a'tingling.
Logged
?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #127 on: January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM »
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 09:43:47 AM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 09:41:51 AM
(the number I calculated was 688nm for a 6m experiment).

Then don't perform the experiment over 6m.
Exactly. That is why your previous experiment proves nothing. However, if you look into SLAC you will probably find what you are looking for.
Logged
Don't diss physics until you try it!
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45093
  • +87/-123
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #128 on: January 26, 2010, 10:02:08 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on January 25, 2010, 11:49:00 PM
Quote from: markjo on January 25, 2010, 01:27:10 PM
Would you care to provide some evidence supporting your conclusion?

Certainly. The radiation we observe directly is not coming from the Sun's source of power, whatever that may be. Rather, the energy is transferred to the outer layers (which, in my hypothesis, is a thin atmosphere made of the elements we observe in the Sun's absorption spectrum) and then released as (among other things) visible light. The Sun could therefore be expected to behave as a near-perfect black body with various absorption lines, something which observation agrees with quite well.

In other words, no, you don't have any evidence (sorry, but yet another unsupported hypothesis is not evidence) that the radiation observed from the sun is consistent with quark-gluon reactions.  Thanks, I'm glad that we could clear that up.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 10:03:44 AM by markjo »
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #129 on: January 26, 2010, 10:12:44 AM »
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing

Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Logged
?

ERTW

  • 611
  • +0/-0
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #130 on: January 26, 2010, 10:16:07 AM »
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing

Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.
Logged
Don't diss physics until you try it!
?

Crustinator

  • 7783
  • +0/-0
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #131 on: January 26, 2010, 10:20:04 AM »
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.

Nope. ParistrollSteve asked for an experiment to perform which proved light was rectilinear. I gave him one performed probably daily by little kiddiewinks. The experiment is adaptable and falsifiable, so more than meets his demands. If he chooses not to perform it then it's not my loss.
Logged
*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #132 on: January 26, 2010, 02:18:14 PM »
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing

Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.

Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45093
  • +87/-123
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #133 on: January 26, 2010, 02:30:19 PM »
Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 26, 2010, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing

Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.

Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!

ERTW is not an FE'er.  Please try to keep up, will you?
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #134 on: January 26, 2010, 02:43:01 PM »
Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2010, 02:30:19 PM
Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 26, 2010, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing

Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.

Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!

ERTW is not an FE'er.  Please try to keep up, will you?

Devil's Advocate, FE'er, makes no difference to me. Still stands.
Logged
?

cwolfe

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #135 on: January 26, 2010, 02:44:55 PM »
Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 26, 2010, 02:43:01 PM
Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2010, 02:30:19 PM
Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 26, 2010, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing

Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.

Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!

ERTW is not an FE'er.  Please try to keep up, will you?

Devil's Advocate, FE'er, makes no difference to me. Still stands.

He's neither.  He's argued for the earth being round.  He's simply pointing out that one would need an incredible amount of precision to carry out the experiment proposed by TD.
Logged
*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9533
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #136 on: January 26, 2010, 02:45:47 PM »
Quote from: cwolfe on January 26, 2010, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 26, 2010, 02:43:01 PM
Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2010, 02:30:19 PM
Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 26, 2010, 02:18:14 PM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:16:07 AM
Quote from: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 10:12:44 AM
Quote from: ERTW on January 26, 2010, 10:01:40 AM
That is why your previous experiment proves nothing

Nope. The experiment can be scaled to the level you desire.
Feel free to do so, and please post pictures.

Wait wait... a FE'er saying that pictures can be used as evidence??!!
Inconceivable!

ERTW is not an FE'er.  Please try to keep up, will you?

Devil's Advocate, FE'er, makes no difference to me. Still stands.

He's neither.  He's argued for the earth being round.  He's simply pointing out that one would need an incredible amount of precision to carry out the experiment proposed by TD.

My mistake then.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #137 on: January 26, 2010, 05:37:19 PM »
Quote from: cwolfe on January 26, 2010, 04:27:39 AM
You're correct, but that doesn't necessarily support your hypothesis that the source of energy is quark-antiquark pair annihilation.

I didn't say it did. The question was whether it was consistent with it, which it is. To be honest, I'm more interested in bendy light than the power source of the Sun. The quark-gluon plasma idea was just that, an idea, and it probably has plenty of flaws in it. I'm not sure if any FE researchers are dealing with the subject of solar energy specifically, but if so they would be better qualified than myself to give a detailed answer on this.

However, given my ignorance of any more plausible alternative, I stand by my quark-gluon plasma idea as a FE Sun power source for the time being.

Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2010, 10:02:08 AM
In other words, no, you don't have any evidence (sorry, but yet another unsupported hypothesis is not evidence) that the radiation observed from the sun is consistent with quark-gluon reactions.  Thanks, I'm glad that we could clear that up.

By that reasoning, there's no evidence that observed solar radiation is consistent with nuclear fusion either.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #138 on: January 26, 2010, 05:43:22 PM »
Quote from: cwolfe on January 25, 2010, 06:47:23 PM
Quote from: James on January 25, 2010, 04:31:29 PM
Quote from: cwolfe on January 25, 2010, 02:59:40 PM
Exactly.  Newtonian mechanics is correct under normal circumstances.  Newton wasn't wrong, he just didn't have the complete picture.

I like the cow analogy... that explains it very nicely.

No, Newtonian mechanics is literally incorrect, under any and every actual circumstance. A system which offers rough approximation rather than accurate prediction is not in correspondance with the actual facts. For a system of cosmology which is fully derived from empirical data rather than ad hoc armchair fantasy, I recommend the Ptolemic epicycle model, which bases its explanatory power wholly on pre-hypothetical observation.

Honestly, have you actually taken a single physics course?  Classical newtonian mechanics does a fine job of explaining motion under normal circumstances.  Statements like that is exactly why people laugh at you guys.  Would you have fully general relativistic mechanics taught to a freshman physics class in order to explain basic kinematics?  Good luck with that.

I would rather have anybody and everybody being taught the truth than taught what literally amounts to lies. The fact that you don't see the inherent problem with students being taught content which has been thoroughly disproved demonstrates the cognitive dissonance endemic to your globularist mentality.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45093
  • +87/-123
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #139 on: January 26, 2010, 07:15:31 PM »
Quote from: Parsifal on January 26, 2010, 05:37:19 PM
Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2010, 10:02:08 AM
In other words, no, you don't have any evidence (sorry, but yet another unsupported hypothesis is not evidence) that the radiation observed from the sun is consistent with quark-gluon reactions.  Thanks, I'm glad that we could clear that up.

By that reasoning, there's no evidence that observed solar radiation is consistent with nuclear fusion either.

Fusion has been observed on earth under controlled conditions and solar radiation has been observed above the atmosphere.  Those observations can be (and I'm reasonably sure that they have been) compared. 
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #140 on: January 26, 2010, 07:30:29 PM »
Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2010, 07:15:31 PM
Fusion has been observed on earth under controlled conditions and solar radiation has been observed above the atmosphere.  Those observations can be (and I'm reasonably sure that they have been) compared. 

We don't observe radiation from solar fusion directly according to RET, so this is irrelevant.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

ugaboga313

  • 710
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #141 on: January 26, 2010, 07:49:36 PM »
Yes we do. Notice all that heat? That is radiation. While the emission spectra is that of a very hot blackbody, we still can see the intense heat produced. Also I am pretty sure some unusual radiation (neutrino's, neutrons, solar wind) comes straight from high energy fusion.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #142 on: January 26, 2010, 08:04:59 PM »
Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 26, 2010, 07:49:36 PM
Yes we do. Notice all that heat? That is radiation. While the emission spectra is that of a very hot blackbody, we still can see the intense heat produced. Also I am pretty sure some unusual radiation (neutrino's, neutrons, solar wind) comes straight from high energy fusion.

Please explain how photons (heat radiation) and the solar wind can come directly from fusion when there is a layer of plasma half a gigametre thick shielding its core from our view.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45093
  • +87/-123
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #143 on: January 26, 2010, 08:52:00 PM »
Quote from: Parsifal on January 26, 2010, 08:04:59 PM
Quote from: ugaboga313 on January 26, 2010, 07:49:36 PM
Yes we do. Notice all that heat? That is radiation. While the emission spectra is that of a very hot blackbody, we still can see the intense heat produced. Also I am pretty sure some unusual radiation (neutrino's, neutrons, solar wind) comes straight from high energy fusion.

Please explain how photons (heat radiation) and the solar wind can come directly from fusion when there is a layer of plasma half a gigametre thick shielding its core from our view.

http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/Sunlayers.html
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #144 on: January 26, 2010, 11:29:39 PM »
Quote from: markjo on January 26, 2010, 08:52:00 PM
http://fusedweb.llnl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/Sunlayers.html

That page claims the direct source of photons we see is the photosphere, not the core where the fusion occurs. Since the light isn't coming directly from the fusion, how can you say it is consistent with the fusion model if you discredit my hypothesis that light reaching us indirectly is consistent with my quark-gluon plasma model?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #145 on: January 27, 2010, 02:21:00 AM »
Yeah is you discount solar neutrinos as a fraud then its hard to see into the solar core. One can make assumptions from the chemical composition of the photosphere. This is especially telling when compared to other stars but obviously thats all part of the conspiracy. We both know that quarks don't exist on their own for a large amount of time which is why the QGP has been so hard to find even at insane energies. Its very easy to disprove something when you just label the entire thing a conspiracy, like arguing with a 3 year old going lalalalalalala. Either way lets drag this topc kicking and screaming back to bendy light. What makes light bend. Anyone whos done relativity at high school will see the obvious flaw with this. So presumable we introduce some new type  of particle for it to scatter off?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #146 on: January 27, 2010, 02:56:51 AM »
Quote from: bowler on January 27, 2010, 02:21:00 AM
Yeah is you discount solar neutrinos as a fraud then its hard to see into the solar core.

There is no reason to believe these neutrinos originate from the Sun.

Quote from: bowler on January 27, 2010, 02:21:00 AM
What makes light bend. Anyone whos done relativity at high school will see the obvious flaw with this. So presumable we introduce some new type  of particle for it to scatter off?

Dark Energy makes light bend, the mechanism behind which is unknown. I have studied relativity at a second year university level and I do not see the problem with it.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

bowler

  • 871
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #147 on: January 27, 2010, 03:08:49 AM »
Certainly Superkamiokande if not SNO published the direction their neutrinos came from. If they didn't come from the sun then they came through it or of course the whole thing was made up.

On to accelerating light. As you will no doubt recall from your first year mechanics 'bending' is acceleration. Now for 10 points accelerating a massless particle, anyone? You should be thinking of Einsteins second postulate. The real guts of it I guess is more 3rd/4th year so if your in the second year maybe you havent been through it in detail yet. Anyway light is constrained to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Therefore you can't 'bend' it, you can scatter it which looks like bending a la a lens.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #148 on: January 27, 2010, 03:40:51 AM »
Quote from: bowler on January 27, 2010, 03:08:49 AM
On to accelerating light. As you will no doubt recall from your first year mechanics 'bending' is acceleration. Now for 10 points accelerating a massless particle, anyone? You should be thinking of Einsteins second postulate. The real guts of it I guess is more 3rd/4th year so if your in the second year maybe you havent been through it in detail yet. Anyway light is constrained to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Therefore you can't 'bend' it, you can scatter it which looks like bending a la a lens.

Things which travel at a constant speed can't bend? I've never noticed any difficult taking corners at a constant speed while driving.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

LiceFarm

  • 540
  • +0/-0
Re: Bendy light?
« Reply #149 on: January 27, 2010, 03:44:20 AM »
Quote from: Parsifal on January 26, 2010, 07:30:29 PM
We don't observe radiation from solar fusion directly according to RET, so this is irrelevant.

There's a lot of things we don't observe directly. But we still know they happen. Go away troll.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Up
« previous next »