Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 56 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
A rather strange and bizarre conversation with Newton reminded me of probably my first great mystery I ever first puzzled at in science.

It was one of those moments in life that you remember as if it was yesterday.

I was a young student and this was my first real science problem I had encountered that I could not answer and any answer given to me by teachers and books I could easily falsify.

The problem was simple and you may care to follow

1.) We know and can measure that light is slowed in certain transparent media like air, water and glass.

2.) So if you make the glass or water thicker surely the light must slow more and more like stopping a bullet with jelly all one needs is enough thickness of jelly and the bullet will stop. I thought I was onto something with this because the deep oceans were also dark so a certain amount of water seems to be able to stop light in the above prediction.


However there is a big problem the speed of light is quoted as an absolute number and in fact it is used to create the refractive index

refractive index = speed of light in vacuum / Speed of light in media

Vacuum: 299,792,458 meters per second ... refractive index 1.000

Air at STP: 298,925,574 meters per second ... refractive index 1.000293

Typical crown glass: 197,231,880 meters per second .... refractive index 1.52

Water at 20 C: 225,407,863 meters per second .... refractive index 1.33


So I thought there is something wrong with these numbers how can they be quoting absolute speeds without telling me the thickness.


I was so certain they had to be wrong I searched for the answer to the question how thick a piece of glass, air and water is required to completely stop light travelling thru it.


My problem was compounded because when I took the problem to my science teacher they offered a strange answer which itself was ultimately wrong.


The answer teacher gave:

Light is slowed in a media by the atoms absorbing the photons as they pass thru, a small delay later the photon is released back on it's way so the light passes thru but it appears slightly slower. There is no thickness of glass, air or water that will stop the light and that is why there is no thickness quoted.


Obviously wrong:

There is an obvious falsification to the above. If atom absorption was involved only very specific frequencies matching the spectral lines of the atoms would be affected. The ability to slow the entire spectrum of visible light for example would be almost impossible for a media.

It also was obvious to me if what they said was true I should be able to bend light easily by putting a round jar full of water for example on a record turn table and pass a light thru the turning media. As the photon gets absorbed when it is re-emitted the photon would be slightly moved in the spin direction and each time the process happened you should be able to bend the light. I actually tried it years later with a laser and a high speed centrifuge and nope the light goes straight thru.


A few years later I was to learn the answer to my problem and it is among the most amazing behaviors of light and once the answer is known one never thinks of light thru a media quite the same again.


So open challenge anyone care to offer ideas on the transmission of light thru a media and my childhood problem ... Lets see if anyone knows the answer ... warning google it will probably get you the wrong answer laugh


God luck


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
how to bend light!




in water and sugar layers




in water


in plastic



in glass





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Cool videos Paul and in a fibre optic cable you can tie it in knots and it will travel thru it but that is just the light tube feature of light in operation.

However none of this has really tells you anything about the how light transmission occurs and why these weird effects occur which is the question we are after.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I was just putting up a few interesting videos about
the bending of light , I wasnt intending for the videos to
serve as a answer to your question.

I do have a few questions about your centrifuge experiment however.

centrifuge diameter.
centrifuge speed.
transmission medium. (water , mixture, etc)

did you adjust the laser to different radius while the centrifuge was turning, etc.

did you examine the light inside the centrifuge?

did you try this through a rotating gas?

did you try different speeds?

ie, did the light slow down more while passing through the higher pressurized fluid than through a lower pressurized fluid in the centrifuge?

lots of questions.

try this through water and a vertical laser (top to bottom) locate your pickup sensors inside the centrifuge.

this removes the transmission through the centrifuge bowl.

turn it slow then increase speed.

then try different radius from center for pressure increases.

it should bend the light.right?

Im thinking the light in your experiment might have transmitted through and around the bowl you used and didnt
travel straight through the medium you used.

perhaps.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

centrifuge diameter.
centrifuge speed.
transmission medium. (water , mixture, etc)


Long time ago but it was a standard science centrifuge generally they do something like 15000-20000 RPM max. I bought it from the uni they were replacing it and I removed the outside casing and removed the central cradle. I then had a round metal plate made up that clamped a standard large science beaker with lid in the centre and had it balanced by a workshop on a machine that balanced turbocharger fans. I then put the rig ontop of the spindle shaft of the centrifuge.


So you can probably guess by all that effort I thought I was about to rewrite physics.

It all failed dismally smile


Originally Posted By: paul

did you adjust the laser to different radius while the centrifuge was turning, etc.


I did everything I was certain it would do something different and it all behaves exactly the same as the beaker not moving (one of your videos is light going thru a round beaker).


Originally Posted By: paul

did you examine the light inside the centrifuge?


That was actually what I was most measuring I had the laser clamped and from above was measuring the refraction angle because you could see the beam thru the spinning beaker and record it.

It is all rather boring whatever it looks like prior to the spin it looks like after spinning except.


Originally Posted By: paul

did you try this through a rotating gas?

did you try different speeds?


I tried a oxygen, nitrogen, neon, helium gases. For liquids I used water, ethane, toluene and any homogenous liquids I could get my hands on because obviously if the liquid is a mixture the centrifuge will produce an effect because it will change densities between middle and outer.


Originally Posted By: paul

ie, did the light slow down more while passing through the higher pressurized fluid than through a lower pressurized fluid in the centrifuge?


Nope I didn't try anything with pressure I was very disappointed in the end as you may have guessed.


Originally Posted By: paul


try this through water and a vertical laser (top to bottom) locate your pickup sensors inside the centrifuge.

this removes the transmission through the centrifuge bowl.

turn it slow then increase speed.

then try different radius from center for pressure increases.

it should bend the light.right?



Didn't try it but I can predict what will happen absolutely nothing!!!!


Originally Posted By: paul

Im thinking the light in your experiment might have transmitted through and around the bowl you used and didnt
travel straight through the medium you used.


That is what I was expecting as well Paul it doesn't happen and as I later learnt there is a reason the light doesn't actually travel in the medium at all.

I will give you the answer via an experiment I did many years later.

Here is the background to the experiment.

Look at the image of a laser going thru a solid plastic block from above



What you notice is the light changes angle the moment it hits the surface of the block.

Now a thought experiment for you keep making the block thinner and thinner until it is the thickness of plastic lunch wrap.

Will it still refract the laser beam?

Lets go one further lets take the thickness down till we have a layer one atom thick will it still refract the laser beam?


I will wait for your answer but I will give you what I expected to happen with a one atom thick wall which light passed thru was it would sometimes refract the beam if it hit an atom and sometimes not and pass straight thru. That is the natural expectation but it is not what happens .. can you guess what happens?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
can you guess what happens?


by thinning the block nothing happens , unless the block becomes
smaller than the beam.

in which case the light entering the block is only less.


the problem with the experiment is that it is too small.

lets increase its size.

lets make it 93 million miles from the center of the centrifuge.

so that light from the center would take apx 8 minutes to reach the perimeter of the bowl.

like our suns light hitting the earth.

instead of using the sun we use a hand held laser.

and the laser is rotating , the light from the laser will
look as if it were bending if viewed from above.

lets reverse this , if we put the laser 93 million miles from the center of the bowl and point it at the center and let the laser orbit the center , it still takes apx 8 minutes for the laser light to reach the center.

looking at the laser beam from above the light will look as if its bending as it travels.

but all of the light is moving away from the center at a right angle to the center.

motion and time becomes involved.

like pointing directly at a moving target and trying to hit it
you will never hit the target.

if the space between the earth and the sun were made of glass
then the time would be greater than the 8 minutes because the glass would slow down the light waves.

which brings us back to the thickness in your first post.

does thickness of a medium matter?

on a sunny day is there light 1 mile down on the sea floor?

of course thickness matters.

light slowed down to the speed of a bicycle



now if the bose einstein condensate were rotating , the light
would exit the condensate at a different angle than it entered , it could even be sent backwards.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am not sure what to even make of or answer to that it's a mix of different statements smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Quote:
Lets go one further lets take the thickness down till we have a layer one atom thick will it still refract the laser beam?

In my opinion, yes. The refraction occurs right at the boundary layer.


Quote:
...and as I later learnt there is a reason the light doesn't actually travel in the medium at all.

Are you saying that the photon that first touches the medium is not the one that "exits" the medium?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Orac

do you think that the bose einstein condensate slows light down?

and if so , dont you think that if the condensate were rotating
the light would exit the condensate at a different angle than it
entered?

Pokey

Quote:
In my opinion, yes. The refraction occurs right at the boundary layer.


that is the way that light travels through a medium.
light angle to boundary layer --> refraction angle --> exit angle same as entry angle (parallel).


Quote:
Are you saying that the photon that first touches the medium is not the one that "exits" the medium?


this is getting interesting.
from what I understand its not the same as the one that entered , because photons are emitted through excitement.

the atoms get excited by photons entering the medium then they emit photons.etc...etc...etc... then the light exits the medium.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
this is getting interesting.
from what I understand its not the same as the one that entered , because photons are emitted through excitement.

the atoms get excited by photons entering the medium then they emit photons.etc...etc...etc... then the light exits the medium.

No, I think Orac mentioned that idea, and that it is not correct. The electrons in an atom can absorb radiation only at specific wavelengths. Each atom absorbs a discrete set of wavelengths. So with a white light the only wavelengths of light that would be affected would be the ones that corresponded to the wavelengths that the molecules in that substance could absorb. The index of refraction does depend somewhat on wavelength, that's why you get a refraction pattern when you shine a white light through a prism. But if it was being absorbed and re-emitted it wouldn't work for all wavelengths.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
"now if the bose einstein condensate were rotating , the light
would exit the condensate at a different angle than it entered , it could even be sent backwards"


Michelson Morley and above

Omega = V line /Radius


Line velocity of the Earth aslo can be measure

Light --->(bose einstein condensate)----> out light ----> 30km/s

Beam shape I mean " beam angle must rise up " slower or opposite to 30 km/s faster

( sorry for my English )

Beam shape for example entry is 2r angle( below picture ) exit is (3r) ( we schould see + and - 30 km /s different )



Rotation info (now if the bose einstein condensate were rotating , the light
would exit the condensate at a different angle than it entered)

+ Line velocity ( beam's angle shape ) = all what we need to evaluate absolute Earth Velocity

( Michelson Morley inside bose einstein condensate) ???

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pokey

In my opinion, yes. The refraction occurs right at the boundary layer.



The correct answer is slightly before the boundary layer because the electromagnetic wave and the electrons react a small distance ahead.


Originally Posted By: pokey

Are you saying that the photon that first touches the medium is not the one that "exits" the medium?


The photon never exists in the media at all in techno speak

Quote:

Light traveling within a medium is no longer a disturbance solely of the electromagnetic field, but rather a disturbance of the field and the positions and velocities of the charged particles (electrons) within the material.


I will get to the proof of this when I answer some of the next answers .. follow along

Last edited by Orac; 09/20/13 02:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
Orac
do you think that the bose einstein condensate slows light down?


I thought you didn't believe in QM so how can a BEC exist ... just stirring smile

Anything with electrons will slow light down and I will show you the proof in a second ... science has a proof!


Originally Posted By: paul

and if so , dont you think that if the condensate were rotating
the light would exit the condensate at a different angle than it
entered?


Refraction occurs wherever there are elctrons in space that light encounters that is all the light sees is the charge it doesn't see the atom or matter or media as anything but that and again I will ask you hang in the same as pokey and I will show you the proof.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Transmission of light from a modern perspective:

Electromagnetic waves including light the same as all the fundamental fields would usual pass straight thru matter. The only reason light reacts with matter is because electromagnetic waves including light react with the charge in matter it becomes like a shockwave.


The ultimate proof of that can be done by using QM trickery called electrically induced transparency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_induced_transparency

You can make a material that normal will not allow light to pass thru it to allow it thru over a very narrow window band.

Layman articles:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/f...tack-using-eit/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/electromagnetic-induced-transparency/


The full layman reference on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light


Why this subject still causes confusion and is not easily picked up on google searches is because the definitive answers are all post 1999, it takes time for such changes to make it through all levels of science.


That is the point the idea of light wave duality died, light is only ever a wave the particle behavior of light is an illusion creted by the disturbance of the field in the presence of charge (electrons).


The correct and more accurate view of light is quoted

Quote:

The simplest picture of light given by classical physics is of a wave or disturbance in the electromagnetic field. In a vacuum, Maxwell's equations predict that these disturbances will travel at a specific speed, denoted by the symbol c. This well-known physical constant is commonly referred to as the speed of light. The postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames lies at the heart of special relativity and has given rise to a popular notion that the "speed of light is always the same". However, in many situations light is more than a disturbance in the electromagnetic field.

In addition to propagating through a vacuum, light may also propagate through many types of matter, denoted as the medium. Light traveling within a medium is no longer a disturbance solely of the electromagnetic field, but rather a disturbance of the field and the positions and velocities of the charged particles (electrons) within the material. The motion of the electrons is determined by the field (due to the Lorentz force) but the field is determined by the positions and velocities of the electrons (due to Gauss' law and Ampere's law). The behavior of a disturbance of this combined electromagnetic-charge density field (i.e. light) is still determined by Maxwell's equations, but the solutions are complicated because of the intimate link between the medium and the field.



That is the lesson and memo in the question I posed.

Newtons problems stem from the fact he equates light in a vacuum to light in a media and that assumption is wrong ... one needs to be careful about assumptions smile

He shouldn't feel bad that was my problem as well in my initial experiment and why it failed dismally .. so I was definitely no smarter but I did learn laugh

There is a small message in the experiment for those who still want a solid world anything that looks solid with a bit of QM trickery we can make transparent to light so your world really is a "glass house" take care in every sense smile

So many lessons from one piece of basic science!

Paul won't like it or accept it because it involves QM so even proof by doing what in classic physics seems impossible ... mind you we have him accepting BEC exists he probably didn't realise what it is ... queue predictable reaction ... uncontrolled rant incoming laugh

Last edited by Orac; 09/20/13 05:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Below my test proposition inside LIGO pipe

if somone know staff please call them we can use small laser
we need only vacuum ( zero dolars investition )

Below pictures and idea I made on two days after my test with photocamera


IDEA EXPLAIN ( Vacuum )

SHOT no 1
----light----> [pipe 4 km (2.5 )miles ] --> 30 km/s
(1/300 000 sec)
we turn on and
off hot laser
for very short time

Shot no 2 the same light signal but ( 6 h later )
pipe will be ideal perpendicular to 30 km/s


( what is happen inside pipe )? light need for distance 4 km
4/300 000 s
( 1/300 000 s ) we turn on/off hot laser ( I designed special
shoter like in photocamera only 1/300 000 s )

3/300 000 s ?

after we turned off laser
light signal = beam that is long 1 km
and we know that beam is inside pipe

Earth around SUN 30 km/s = that pipe is mving with Earth
what about 1 km long beam inside pipe ???

3/300 000 s and 30 km/s = 30 000 000 mm/s schoud give at the end of pipe different between position where light entry to pipe and exit from pipe

REAL TEST IN LIGO PROPOSITIONS ( we can made )
sorry for my english

http://tesla2.blogspot.com/

I wait for peole who want to confirm above Michelson Morley test but beam long 1 km Vacuum and beam inside pipe that is moving perpendicular to beam !!!!

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sure Newton don't let facts and experimental results get in the way of your theory laugh


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
STEP 1
calibration we wait for earth position
30 km/s must be parallel to our pipe

we make master shot ( perfect to center -end of pipe )



Situation after step 1 ( before step 2 )




Step 2
Laser is hot ( we wait 6 h ... 6 h later we know that 30 km/s is perpendicular to laser ( laser was set 6 h before )



blue element is bloking hot laser and we wait for start
( blue element will open / close only for 1/300 000 s)


STEP 2
SHOT !!!! ( at the end of pipe we have sensor similar to camera chip - this sesor is able register light position )



BEFORE BEAM INSIDE PIPE 3/300 000 sec ???

( for me it will look like very old video game )




author
Maciej Marosz
Engineer and Inventor
http://tesla4.blogspot.com/

my first test I started 1 year ago above pipe we can exchange for dark dark filtre and camera

important info ( not exist ideal line - laser always have some angle )



It is new version Michelson Morley test but my Version without any problem can read WEST - East

I have only one problem I live in small polish town ( getto )
and I not have condition for test !!!

http://solarsytemspeed.blogspot.com/

Last edited by newton; 09/20/13 05:16 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
The experiment will fail dismally assuming the tube is a vacuum it will do something even weirder than you think if the tube contains a media like air and you will have to be careful about what the tube is built from laugh

The problem with actually doing the experiment is dealing with micro movements, expansion/contraction with temperature and geomagnetic induction over such a long distance. The whole setup is actually completely crazy to try and control, you do a much more precise test with smaller easier setups with a quantum dot but that would require learning which isn't your strong point Newton. I like your optimism on the size of the laser dot on the target over a 4km distance smile

I would do the experiment for you to show how silly it is newton but it's completely impractical.

It is rather easy to work out what will happen you choose not to try and understand smile

Last edited by Orac; 09/20/13 06:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Orac

Quote:
So many lessons from one piece of basic science!

Paul won't like it or accept it because it involves QM so even proof by doing what in classic physics seems impossible ... mind you we have him accepting BEC exists he probably didn't realise what it is ... queue predictable reaction ... uncontrolled rant incoming


if I like it or not means nothing.

I used the bose eienstein condensate because it shows that light can be slowed drastically in a small experiment.

if the experiment claims to only exist due to the proposed reality of QM being a factual means of calculations
used to predict that is based on fantasy then that also means
nothing.

the point here is that light was slowed by the condensate.

and if the condensate were contained inside your centrifuge experiment the light would exit at a different angle.

theres no question about that.

but the same result can be achieved using a larger experiment
that has nothing to do with fantasy such as QM.

all the bose einstein condensate does is reveal that a larger
experiment can be performed with the exact results.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

Quote:
No, I think Orac mentioned that idea, and that it is not correct.


let me guess , so your saying that the photons that enter the
medium are the same photons that exit the medium.

is that what your saying?

so basically your saying that the light that exits the medium
does not interact with the medium at all , correct.

if so then why does the speed of light decrease through a medium?

I still say that photons entering a medium excite the atoms in the medium and the atoms emit photons and this interaction is why the speed of light decreases through a medium.

diamonds = 2.14 ri

glass = 1.5 ri

diamonds more dense than glass = more interaction.

as in... sometimes you can still find the sensible stuff
if you look long enough , it hasnt been covered up completely
to satisfy the new fantasy disciplines in science.

Quote:
The speed of light in a vacuum is always the same, but when light moves through any other medium it travels more slowly since it is constantly being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms in the material. The ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum to the speed of light in another substance is defined as the index of refraction (aka refractive index or n) for the substance.


http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/hanson/labtechniques/refractometry/theory.htm

Originally Posted By: paul
this is getting interesting.
from what I understand its not the same as the one that entered , because photons are emitted through excitement.

the atoms get excited by photons entering the medium then they emit photons.etc...etc...etc... then the light exits the medium.


YES!

also , lets not forget temperature as temperature causes a medium to become less dense or more dense , so the speed of light is slightly faster through a hotter medium and slightly slower through a colder medium.

and pressures cause temperature increases and vacuums cause
temperature decreases.

its all classical physics.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
So many lessons from one piece of basic science!


where are the lessons orac?

Im sure that using QM and its fantasy math you can invent billions of useless lessons from this , but fantasy would be the foundation of those lessons.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
in my post about long pipe I showed how to measure Earth velocity
inside the universe and space that exist

To show Earth's speed we need only light's speed ( constant in vacuum or other media inside pipe )

IF LIGHT's SPEED IS ABSOLUTE AND CONSTANT so....

EARTH's SPEED IS ABSOLUTE AND CONSTANT

we can write many equations my motion respect Sun or other objects
but real and true are only equations respect to virtual stationary space.

My test = Michelson Morley but one long ARM VERSION
everyone who like physics know what mean if we can measure
west East different

Mr Orac use here on that forum words "Your theory Newton "
it is not next genial teory supported by mathematica
but above we have experiment that explain absolute motion of the Earth inside the Universe

How to use above knowledge for very long travel
Rocket that we will start must ! must ! start opposite to absolute Earth's motion

If rocket will slown down or 100% stop = sucess !

rocket can wait and not use fuel ( Earth and Sun will travel )
rocket will only wait

Absolute stationary rocket and atomic clock = golden master
of absolute time in space

1 meter and absolute zero = golden master of distance

...
...
..

Very nice and important will be golden sample of the mass
only if !!! our own coordination system absolute not moving
we can use NEWTON equations for DYNAMICA other situation
we must evaluate motion ( constant motion = that body have kinetic energy and direction of motion .

Mass M and Inertia ?

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=49786#Post49786

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

Im sure that using QM and its fantasy math you can invent billions of useless lessons from this , but fantasy would be the foundation of those lessons.



Haha poor Paul you walked right into that one ... So does a BEC exist or not Paul laugh

Got two nutcases for the price of one it was a bonus!


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Dear Orac

---light--> hot water

---light--> cold water

----light--> critical low temp

high temp = that electrons more faster rotate
Lower temp = electrons slowing down

Do You need mathematica and theory to understand above ????
termodynamic it is not quantum ? we no need theory old model work very good

LIGHT = energy
Energy that have direction and arrow !!!!

( motion is absolute )
isotropy C respect to point where signal started it is very natural and old ( 1730 J. Bradley )

You know what mean test with pipe that I showed above ?

WHY MICHELSON MORLEY ? ABOVE I SHOWED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE ZERO IN MY PIPE !!!!

there is absolute space ( also for classical mechanic )

I'm sure that absolute motion slowdown electrons period


e----C----------------e -----10000 km/s ------>

how many km will make electron in absolute space pleae make full circle ???? ( respect to athom's center it is the same
way but respect to absolute space ???)

e----C-----e -----ZERO km/s ------>


PLEASE ADD APPARENT POINT TO GRAVITATION SIGNAL

A) m-----M ---->
or
B) M-----m ---->

it is not symetry in sutuation A mass m will feel much more stronger mass M feild


WE ALL KNOW THAT LIGHT FEEL GRAVITATION
NO !!! IT IS NOT LIGHT PROBLEM !!!!

GRAVITATION IS CHANGING DENSITY OF SPACE ( BODIES MORE CLOSED TO SUN have got bigger DENSITY light inside this bodies has got lower velocity )

( density and temperature change electrons period and directions and positions where electrons are more often )

Exist motion ? below picture ( sun is more closed or more far to light signal taht is trying escape )



only in absolute zero velocity athoms will be perfect isotropy medium for light ( absolute zero motion - zero gravitation and zero temperature different )

e----C-----e


WHAT IF WE WILL REPEAT MY TEST ( PIPE TEST )
HOT MEDIUM lower TEMP MEDIUM ?
Gravitation ? lower more higher ?

WHERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EDUCATION
PLEASE START TEST ( before my die)










Last edited by newton; 09/22/13 10:13 AM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209


apparent point airlane and bulb !!!

Light need the same time for distance L ( bulb camera )
during light is traveling airplane not wait

400 km/h
800 km/h

Important animation apparent point def.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

please study where is Airplane A and B after short time ?
how look light's cone respect to point where A and B airplane
were in the same line and buls started signal)



Gravitation also work respect to apparent point !!!
not respect to fresh SUN position !!!
( I'm sorry below picture I have small mistake F1 is bigger than F2 I made my blog 3-5 days after first test I don't want to chaange evidence "data ")


FORCES INSIDE ATHOMS also WORK RESPECT TO APPARENT POINT !!!

e -----C --------e

FUNDAMENTS ( physics ) AND CONSTANT MOTION ???
For Gallileo it is impossible recognize absolute constant motion from inside own coordination system

( coordination system is moving with US and all mass that we are using for test also )

GALLILEO forget about waves and apparent point ----1730 J.Bradley ) All optics instruments that we are using on the Earth showing not fresh positions objests that we are observing




We have new physics = fact
problem is that many IDIOTS must say UPPPPS I'm SORRY
we made mistake 400 Years old step by step we build illusion









Last edited by newton; 09/22/13 10:17 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
POOR POOR NEWTON .. you are up against a mountain of experiments and results and you just look more and more stupid and desperate.

All of those experiments like electrical induced transparency you haven't got the slightest answer for how they would come about under your stupidity.


I am comfortable no sane student or layman reading the threads can be under illusion you are anything but a nutcase I will happily retire and leave you and the other lunatic to it as the evidence against you both is compelling and daming laugh

Task completed I move onto next challenge smile


Last edited by Orac; 09/22/13 12:09 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Haha poor Paul you walked right into that one ... So does a BEC exist or not Paul laugh

Got two nutcases for the price of one it was a bonus!


BEC , is not QM !!!!!!

helium 4 superfluids were discovered in 1938...

QMtards just claim it like they try to claim everything else.

rubidium 87 and laser cooling does not equate to fantasy QM science.
rubidium 87 actually exist!
and
laser cooling actually exist!

combining the two in a process is actually possible and therefore cannot be attached to any QMtard fantasy.

you really amuse me with your ignorance orac.

Quote:
The photon never exists in the media at all in techno speak


LOL, dont you mean QMtard speak , because technically
and physically the photon is in the medium interacting
with the atoms in the medium.

but I guess retards will be QMtards.

you are what you eat.

it must be simple feeding QMtards the piles of crap that they
consume.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Paul, just to give you some idea of how laser cooling works here is a link to The first of a series of posts by Chad Orzel on creating super cooled atoms.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
OR he could just Wikipedia it laugh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Quote:

A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C[1]). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. These effects are called macroscopic quantum phenomena.



Hard to think what he thinks is non QM about it the whole thing you couldn't even describe using classic physics even Einstein described them as such.

As you try to un QM your world Paul it is all going to blow up in your face smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill

I already know how laser cooling works.

I hope your not trying to attach laser cooling to the
reply you made earlier stating that the photons do not
interact with the atoms in a media , where you suggested
that there would be no photon interaction with atoms in
the media due to the frequencies of the atoms in the media.

look at white light and a prism , where the white light is separated into its individual frequencies through interaction.

this clearly shows interaction.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Hard to think what he thinks is non QM about it the whole thing you couldn't even describe using classic physics even Einstein described them as such.


LOL, just like I said , a gas ! a laser ! = non QMtard involvement.

its all classical , and eventually the QMtards will have no
fantasy to fantasize about.

even einstein !

Quote:
Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly contributing to the field, he did not accept many of the more "philosophical consequences and interpretations" of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality. He is famously quoted as saying, in response to this aspect, "My God does not play with dice".


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Hi Orac
below picture You add to my topic about Apparent doppler

DO you see circle ? OR ELLIPSE ( I MARKED ARROW )



above picture story ( below link )
http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901


above picture = evidence that ultra precision microscope
see ellipse ( the Reason is absolute Earth motion and abberation 1730 J. Bradley )



Very important is my post about " LONG PIPE TEST in ligo "



we have NEW ultra strong tool to evaluate with huge precission where is electron or where are electrons


electron has got mass m ( mass m is moving around atom's center ) Athom's center is moving inside absolute space

Everyone can repeat below test in home ( I started think about motion one years ago )






TIME and Space ARE WERE and WILL BE ABSOLUTE !!!!

I SOLVED IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLVE FOR OLD PHYSICS PROBLEM



MY TEST VERY SRONG COOPERATE WITH MR MACH IDEA ( EINSTEIN MADE MISTAKE HE could more stronger cooperate with MR MACH )

MACH !! MACH is KING



MACH FAR FAR STAR = MAROSZ BULB AND PHOTOCAMERA TEST !!!

SOLAR SYSTEM AND MOTION ( WINTER SUMMER )




atomic clock problem ( Electron velocity = constant )
if atom's center is moving faster ====> natural implication is that electron is making longer distance respect to absolute space There is no ANY SECRETS about different time

ATOMIC CLOCKS PERIOD NATURAL CHANGE ( cleare classical mechanic) zero dilatation ....!!! and ... and...

Einstein made totaly mistake

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
"SOMEONE"
MUST HELP ME TAKE ALL INFORMATIONS in ONE HUGE ARTICLE

my english is bad
I not have money for professional support but all what I
describe on this forum = many new questions !!!

many people must see new model and
we people must eliminate step by step
matematical speculations from real physics


We must study more stronger classical mechanic problems
Nothing is relative all bodies has got some kinetic energy
Energy has got direction and arrow

Constat velocity is symetry only for first look
please study more precission problems That I share with You
on this forum

we can recognize and measure constant velocity
Each body in the universe has got own special apparent point!

Exist some center ? where we from ? why we slown down ?
what is it dark mattery ? black holes ?



PLEASE ADD APPARENT POINT TO MANY OBSERVATIONS
we must ask about help astronomers !!!




Last edited by newton; 09/22/13 04:14 PM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You got the seek help part right smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: paul
I hope your not trying to attach laser cooling to the reply you made earlier stating that the photons do not interact with the atoms in a media , where you suggested that there would be no photon interaction with atoms in the media due to the frequencies of the atoms in the media.


I clearly did not say that there is no interaction. I clearly said that the atoms in the material do not absorb and re-emit the photons. That is a completely different statement from what you have tried to make it be.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
lets recap this.

Originally Posted By: orac
...and as I later learnt there is a reason the light doesn't actually travel in the medium at all.


pokey then questioned orac as follows.

Originally Posted By: pokey
Are you saying that the photon that first touches the medium is not the one that "exits" the medium?


heres what I said.

Quote:
this is getting interesting.
from what I understand its not the same as the one that entered , because photons are emitted through excitement.

the atoms get excited by photons entering the medium then they emit photons.etc...etc...etc... then the light exits the medium.


and heres what you said . and you started it off with "No"
as if I was wrong.

Quote:
No, I think Orac mentioned that idea, and that it is not correct. The electrons in an atom can absorb radiation only at specific wavelengths. Each atom absorbs a discrete set of wavelengths. So with a white light the only wavelengths of light that would be affected would be the ones that corresponded to the wavelengths that the molecules in that substance could absorb. The index of refraction does depend somewhat on wavelength, that's why you get a refraction pattern when you shine a white light through a prism. But if it was being absorbed and re-emitted it wouldn't work for all wavelengths.

Bill Gill


did orac reply to pokeys question?

yes.

Originally Posted By: orac
The photon never exists in the media at all in techno speak


it never exist at all in the medium..

so orac probably did state that earlier as you said.

I wonder if orac will link to that information or will
he rant and rave about religion and allow the rant to be
his answer to pokey and the rave to cover it up?

LOL





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Originally Posted By: Orac

The photon never exists in the media at all in techno speak


Originally Posted By: Orac

Light traveling within a medium is no longer a disturbance solely of the electromagnetic field, but rather a disturbance of the field and the positions and velocities of the charged particles (electrons) within the material.


My simple at the moment interpretation, taken mostly from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index " the "Microscopic explanation" section.

The disturbance in the electromagnetic field (light) when in a media disturbs the charged particles (electrons) in the media.

[Does this cause the electrons to form dipoles?]

This disturbance (of the position and velocity of the electrons in the media) cause them to oscillate (shake) at the same
frequency as the incoming wave, these electrons then radiate their own EM wave that is at the same frequency but usually
with a phase delay, which is where the slowing (index of refraction) comes from.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Pokey is very perceptive and has worked it out !!!!

You can get phase and frequency shift and all sorts of effects now you understand the principle.

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

There are many mechanisms which can generate slow light, all of which create narrow spectral regions with high dispersion, i.e. peaks in the dispersion relation. Schemes are generally grouped into two categories: material dispersion and waveguide dispersion. Material dispersion mechanisms such as Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT), Coherent Population Oscillation (CPO), and various Four Wave Mixing (FWM) schemes produce a rapid change in refractive index as a function of optical frequency, i.e. they modify the temporal component of a propagating wave. This is done by using a nonlinear effect to modify the dipole response of a medium to a signal or "probe" field. Waveguide dispersion mechanisms such as photonic crystals, Coupled Resonator Optical Waveguides (CROW), and other micro-resonator structures modify the spatial component (k-vector) of a propagating wave. Slowlight can also be achieved exploiting the dispersion properties of planar waveguides realized with single negative metamaterials (SNM) [5] [6] or double negative metamaterials (DNM).[7]



The important things we have leant is that the idea of wave/particle duality has been replaced by only the wave behavior and we have that light in a media is a bit more than just light.


You will also note the new understanding also has huge implications going forward which also gets lost my the media.

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

Potential use:

Slow light could be used to greatly reduce noise, which could allow all types of information to be transmitted more efficiently. Also, optical switches controlled by slow light [9] could cut power requirements a million-fold compared to switches now operating everything from telephone equipment to supercomputers.[1] Slowing light could lead to a more orderly traffic flow in networks. Meanwhile, slow light can be used to build interferometers that are far more sensitive to frequency shift as compared to conventional interferometers. This property can be used to build better, smaller frequency sensor and compact high resolution spectrometers.



And that's the memo.

Last edited by Orac; 09/23/13 10:10 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted By: orac
Pokey is very perceptive and has worked it out !!!!


perceptive or gullible?

you ( orac ) said the light ( photon , electromagnetic wave ) never existed inside the medium.

you were wrong , your just too full of it to admit it.

excerpts from pokeys link.

Quote:
At the microscale, an electromagnetic wave's phase speed is slowed in a material because the electric field creates a disturbance in the charges of each atom (primarily the electrons)


in the above using the words electromagnetic wave is the same as saying a photon.

a photon is a electromagnet wave

Quote:

As the electromagnetic fields oscillate in the wave, the charges in the material will be "shaken" back and forth at the same frequency
The charges thus radiate their own electromagnetic wave that is at the same frequency, but usually with a phase delay,


the above says that a photon excites an atom and a photon is emitted.

..............

needless to say , when the atom emits a photon , a photon has likewise been absorbed , else
the light waves ( photons ) would be greatly increased in number as they interact and pass through a medium.

..............

pokeys link does not state that the photon does not exist inside the medium as you have erroneously claimed.

how could the photon ( electromagnetic wave , light ) slow
down if there is no interaction?

answer , it cant.

there must be interaction , the light must be in the medium
in order for the interaction to occur.

however if two QMtards were having a discussion about it then
there would be no boundaries or limits to the impossibilities.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You have my sympathy Paul ... sorry it must be hard .. everyone else worked it out smile

It like most things will remain a mystery to you.

Last edited by Orac; 09/23/13 04:49 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted By: orac
everyone else worked it out


I really enjoy it when you say things like that orac.

I find it entertaining when you try to cover up your faults
by claiming more and more falsities and including others into
your additional false claims.

orac , I dont see anyone else claiming that light does not transmit through a medium in this thread other than you , even the link that pokey put up does not claim that.

even the title of the thread suggest that you dont even
believe what you are claiming.

Originally Posted By: title of this thread
Transmission of light thru a media


knowing that , wouldnt it be more factual for you to say that you are the only person in the universe that worked that out?

so the real mystery is why you think the way that you do and who are the "everyone else" that you have now become?

whistle

Quote:
You have my sympathy Paul ... sorry it must be hard


what must really be hard for a QMtard such as yourself
is when someone like myself shatters your fantasy QM claims.

all the proud boasting and clique back patting comes to
a screeching halt.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac, heres where your chain of thought became blurred.

Quote:
So I thought there is something wrong with these numbers how can they be quoting absolute speeds without telling me the thickness.


I was so certain they had to be wrong I searched for the answer to the question how thick a piece of glass, air and water is required to completely stop light travelling thru it.


the thickness of the medium does not matter as long as
the atoms in the medium are constant throughout.

so if your medium were 10,000 km long as in a fiber optic cable the light still passes through it , and the length of
the optic cable would determine the speed at which light transmits through it.

due only to the photon emission delay.

and delays due to temperature.

you somehow assumed that when a photon excites an atom in the medium and a photon was emitted by atoms in the medium the light would eventually stop completely if there were enough atoms in the path of the light.

but you forgot that photons are emitted at or above the speed of light.

so there is no slowing of the light there is only the delay
of photon emission.

ie..the number of interactions in the medium determine the
degree of slowing of the light ( photons , electromagnetic waves).

the temperature and density of the medium is the key to
slowing light.

your main problem was that you neglected that photons are
emitted at or near the speed of light.

even the last photon in the media that excites an atom before the atom emits a photon is traveling at or near the speed of light and the emitted photon that exits the medium is traveling at or near the speed of light.

when the light leaves the medium it is traveling at the speed of light.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
As you asked a semi intelligent reply rather than the usual science beat my god up garbage I will answer


Nothing we have said contradicts anything you have said except three MAJOR corrections

1.) There never is an above the speed of light EVER.

2.) The light wave passing thru the media is an EM wave it is electromagnetic in nature and it is reacting with the electrons in the media which are electric in their nature. This is the interaction you somehow can't see smile

3.) There never is a particle, light is a wave, the historic particle nature of light was largely conceived to understand manifestations of the light in the charge clouds in the media.


Density, temperature and anything else that effects the movement of the electrons in a media will effect the speed of light. Nothing we have said changes any behavior of light from the classic sense other than there are no particles.

I am sorry Paul to make us wrong you would have to show us a particle of light because that is the only thing we have changed from everything you believe above .... get it that's the only difference we don't have photons as particles we have photons as little wave packets.

If you want to believe there are little particles of light because it somehow makes you sleep better with your GOD then knock yourself out. The problem is there are a number of situations you will simple not be able to explain like Electrically Induced Transparency and the ability to stop and store light etc.

The old science story of lights wave/particle duality we simply removed the particle bit from the story because it is actually unnecessary and misleading. So in any old science text which talks about a photon particle replace it with the words "photon wave packet" and you would be more correct and nothing from the original will have changed.

I should also add it is a little easier to accept how a wave gets absorbed by an atom than it is to have photons as a particle ball which gets absorbed and then suddenly disappears??? and then suddenly comes back again. That whole explaination always more than a little naft the old now you see it now you don't ball I think went out with the idea magic was real.

Last edited by Orac; 09/24/13 12:56 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
well its a good thing that I havent mentioned a particle then
orac , but you have mentioned particle 11 times in this thread
and the word particle has been used 11 times in this thread
before this post that is.

so I suppose that all you wrote about particles suggesting that
I was saying that light is a particle must have been erroneous
like everything else you write.

Quote:
2.) The light wave passing thru the media is an EM wave it is electromagnetic in nature and it is reacting with the electrons in the media which are electric in their nature. This is the interaction you somehow can't see


light is a electromagnetic wave just like I said it was.

but light doesnt pass through like you say it does , photons
are absorbed by atoms and then the atoms emit new photons.

light is not a continous wave that passes thru a medium.

besides you say that the light doesnt even exist in the medium.

Quote:
1.) There never is an above the speed of light EVER.


even though we were discussing the speed of light in a
medium I suppose I should have said the photon is emitted
at or above the phase velocity of the medium ( the speed that light can travel in the medium ) instead of saying the photon is emitted at or above the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#In_a_medium

Quote:
It is possible for a particle to travel through a medium faster than the phase velocity of light in that medium (but still slower than c).







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
haha you really don't get it do you if it worked that way there are obvious problems .. remember that's where the story started laugh

Moving media would cause light to move with it ... I THINK YOU EXPECTED THAT FROM MY CHILDHOOD EXPERIMENT .. I know naively or perhaps stupidly it was what I expected because I got told that story too. Being right or wrong is not the driver for me Paul understanding it all is something you never seem to get but then my world isn't dependent on being right science just corrects what it had wrong along the way.

In my head when I was playing with the centrifuge what I was imagining was waiting for the particle to get absorbed by the atom its momentum altered slightly by the centrifuge and it leaving at a new angle. You describe the same strory and expected the same result and it is logical you would expect it BUT it doesn't happen smile

If the story is true how does the photon keep an absolute sense of direction in a moving media???? To do that you need something weirder than QM you need a particle with an absolute sense of direction smile

I have seen a really really bad way to attempt to solve this by QM which is to claim the QM momentum is different to normal momentum and the QM momentum is maintained and when it resumes it's original path. Why that fails is QM doesn't allow absolute frames and you measure momentum in EXACTLY the same way as classic physics otherwise the two theories are incompatible.

The bigger issue is the absorption of atoms is at very very specific frequencies so how do media get broad spectrums. On solids like glass for example you can make up a story that the lattice has a wide resonance etc .. and that's what we used to do.

The problem is air has no lattice and it is a media and it slows a wide range of frequencies of light ..... the story now makes no sense.

If it worked the way you (and old science) describe then air should slow only very specific frequencies those that match the atoms of the gas ... surely you see the problem here observation doesn't match theory.

I will leave the faster than light phase shift stuff for now because that doesn't change the mechanism and you will suddenly find you are about to drop into another hole with that.

I really don't give a rats what you believe Paul I am past caring what a religious lunatic thinks so I am not going to try an convince you of anything, but fair to say if you view light as only a wave then you are not a classic solid worlder and in fact you agree with QM irrespective of what you say (First BEC exist, now wave behaviour we will convert you next) laugh For my part I am on the side of what can be shown and what makes sense and in this matter science had an impossible position it made no sense which is why a great many scientists were looking at the problem culminating in the final answer.

The huge issue you have from any other proposed answer comes from Electrical Induced Transparency you now have to explain how we are stopping the atoms absorbing and even reflecting light in some manner that remotely makes sense.

The whole reflecting light thing would actually be interesting to ask you how reflection works, we used to avoid talking about it like the plague especially partially reflective surfaces because it makes no real sense under the absorbing photon story so I would be interested how you see reflection of light working. In science we used to always switch to light being a wave because it is hard to make up a story of how a particle could suddenly change direction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)) note the sudden drop of absorption and particles even though many of these reflections are in a media such as air smile

Last edited by Orac; 09/24/13 05:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
orac

Quote:
If the story is true how does the photon keep an absolute sense of direction in a moving media????


perhaps its frequency matching orac.

try this out

first the atoms electrons are excited by adding energy to
the atom causing the electron to move from its ground state
to a higher orbit around the atom called the excited bound state.

electrons orbit therefore the frequency of the electron
and the frequency of the EM wave will only match at certain points in the electrons orbit.

lets say this point is when the electron is at a 90 degree
angle to the atom as observed by the EM wave.

thus the electron becomes excited , emits a photon and
moves to a lower orbit.

the photon that is emitted would be emitted in line with the EM wave.

because when the photon is emitted that would be the vector
that the photon would assume at the moment of emission , like a rock being swung around in a orbit on a string when the string is released.

Quote:
The bigger issue is the absorption of atoms is at very very specific frequencies so how do media get broad spectrums.





the same as above , only the different frequencies of the
light in the spectrum will match the frequency of the orbiting
electron at angles higher and lower than 90 degrees.

the vector of the photon emission will vary according to the
position of the electrons orbit at the moment of photon emission.

thus causing the separation of the different light wave frequencies in the light spectrum.

ie...the frequency match will occur as the electron approaches
90 degrees or passes 90 degrees in its orbit.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
That's a lot of if buts an maybe but at least you are actually thinking how to make it all work smile

By getting rid of the particle nature of light like you did, and thinking about broader interactions with the atoms and electrons, science and your view aren't that far apart.

There is however the reverse problem of spectral absorption lines. Air for example has quite a lot and our good friend laser cooling relies on the precise absorption of only specific frequencies.

You also haven't touched how we get Electrically Induced Transparency.

A theory has to cover all observations and results not just the one it likes and thinks it can match.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
That's a lot of if buts an maybe but at least you are actually thinking how to make it all work


and I've been thinking a little more about it because I found
a problem with it.

the spectral separation worked fine during the first interaction
which vectors the photon off course , however the next interaction would vector the photon , and the next , and etc...

so you end up with a curve of light vs a straight line of light which may never exit the medium.

so heres how I fixed it.

first off I think of an instant as a slowly moving set of events that occur during that instant , there never is a single frame because each frame can be divided into a set of frames and each of those frames can be divided into a set of frames, etc...etc...theres no end.

1) energy is added to the electron.
2) the electron moves outward from its ground state.
3) heres my proposed fix , as the electron is moving outward from its ground state , each orbit around the nucleus brings it further outwards because its angular velocity is increasing.

the light wave encounters the electron while the electron is moving outward.

this encounter occurs again and again as the electron
is moving outward increasing its orbital radius , then when
the frequency of the light wave matches the frequency of the
outward moving electron at a 90 degree angle to the light wave the two waves line up , this stimulates the electron and the resulting vibration of the electron instantly slows the electron drastically * causing the energy contained in the electron to be ejected resulting in the emission of a photon , and the loss
of angular velocity of the electron causes the electron to move back to its ground state.

the new photon is emitted in the same direction as the photon
that was absorbed by the electron.

this removes the curvature noted above and causes the separated light waves to travel in a straight line through the medium.

that works for me for now , and its classical.

proposing an explanation of the initial vector of light
waves at the boundary of the medium will be my next project , I will need a few hours to think about it.


note:

the energy that was given to the atom that caused the electron to move outwards is not recovered , that energy is transfered into the medium as heat.

the added energy of the electron due to its angular velocity before the frequency match is not recovered , half of that energy combined with half of the energy of the light wave is transferred as heat into the medium because of the
vibration and slowing down of the electron.

energy is conserved.
momentum is conserved.
its all classical physics.

Quote:
causing the energy contained in the electron to be ejected


* by slowing the process down even further I realized that
as the electron is slowed down the incomming light wave
becomes compressed within the electron , building up in
intensity while the electron slows , which may be why a photon is emitted.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
proposing an explanation of the initial vector of light
waves at the boundary of the medium will be my next project , I will need a few hours to think about it.


now Im faced with common knowledge that light waves
travel in a single direction such as the below image.



my interpretation of a light wave would be more like the below
image only the image is in 2D not 3D



we can see light when we look at a laser beam from a angle
so its obvious that the light that we see is reflected light
and is no longer a part of the laser beam.

because the light that we see is moving away from the laser beams direction.



this will take longer than I initially thought , I am finding
more and more problems and trying to sift through them.

maybe tomorrow.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Meanwhile in our QM fantasy we continue to push the new understanding

(Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter)
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html


I really liked the layman version for what we in QM called mixed state interactions, in this article

Quote:

"When the photon exits the medium, its identity is preserved," Lukin said. "It's the same effect we see with refraction of light in a water glass. The light enters the water, it hands off part of its energy to the medium, and inside it exists as light and matter coupled together, but when it exits, it's still light. The process that takes place is the same it's just a bit more extreme – the light is slowed considerably, and a lot more energy is given away than during refraction."



I know Paul these experiments and results don't exist we make them all up laugh

Last edited by Orac; 09/26/13 12:26 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Looks like a new medium to pass light through.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/...amp;linkid=http


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Haha never thought of that Bill S. A medium built of light to pass light thru ... however off the top thinking about it no charge cloud (electrons) so it shouldn't react very much different to two laser beams fired thru each other.

It would actually be a weird medium I need to do some calculations and thinking on it, I will see if we could quantify some expected behaviors. I saw an article on the properties on Astatine .. let me see if I can find it

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-theorize-properties-fleeting-astatine.html

It will be even worse than that but an interesting exercise.


One of the more interesting things I am surprised they didn't try was to pass the combined photons thru a solid media like glass and see if it remained bonded or does it separate.

Last edited by Orac; 09/27/13 01:50 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
more problems, Im still thinking about it though.

actually I figured it out several days ago , Im just pondering
if I should say anything.

given the destructive nature of scientist.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Paul

Exist on more very simple fact


light ----> e-----C--------e <----Light

Important is direction and absolute motion ( medium )


atom looks very similar to solar system 20 km/s (ellipse )




A point = Apparent point
VERY IMPORTANT Animation !!!

(click) > animation expain apparent point


In my home I measure different brightness ???
The reason was aisotropy Transmission of light thru a media??

or Camera joust register different resistance
madium give resistance to light ( 30 km/s is important ???)




first test
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )
> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

today I don't know why but below picture = good explain what we can do after repeat my test in home


??????????????????




Last edited by newton; 10/02/13 12:24 PM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
MEDIUM give anisotropy resistance to light ?


light ----> Medium ---Vo--> <------light

what is it Vo ?

Air and Earth ?

Eath is moving in the univerce 20 km/s 220 km/s 30 km/s ???

Can we measure different resistance of Air ??


?????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????????

first test in home (POLAND 2012) ???
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )
> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

CAN WE MEASURE VELOCITY ? = different resistance of medium ?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zD3SHCNAlkE/UK8ogrlmPiI/AAAAAAAAAPk/LqngqVuepwI/s1600/e1.JPG


HOW TO CONFIRM MY IDEA ???



Last edited by newton; 10/02/13 12:57 PM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Good luck with Paul ... you deserve each other ... the thought of it created my humorous moment for the day, like a bad scene from dumb and dumber all we need now is the owl laugh

Please both of you join up and expand science I really really want this!!!


Last edited by Orac; 10/03/13 03:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Orac

LOL

I cant figure out what these guys are saying either.

theres some sort of communication barrier or something.

they may be right , I just cant immerse myself in it.

because I dont understand what their trying to say.

I can just imagine how I would sound to them in their
native language were I to attempt writing to them in their
native language though , so I hope they understand that.

and I hope they dont think that Im picking at them.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Probably like I do .... My English is still pretty average, it has improved a little over the years smile

Went to go to the library today and it's closed because of government shutdown so I am bored !!!!!!

The shutdown affected you at all?

Last edited by Orac; 10/03/13 06:27 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Apparent point ???

>>> Important link

Please add to above animation one picture




please think about famous Newton's gravitation equation
Important is apparent distance !!!???

Are You able be 100 % sure that You are moving or the Source is moving ? YES !!! nothing is relative

Please study below graph Level of signal is very important
( Red/Blue shift it is not only one information that You can measure ) signal started in point 1 but Earth registered singnal in point 4 ( WHERE WILL BE POINT 4 after 6 months ???)







Newton's gravitation and distance ???
real distance is not important !!!
Importnt is apparent distance !!!


Not exist distance e---r1---C--r1---e

inside abslute coordination system
we have

e----C---------------e ------220 km/s ---->


electron feel forces from place where signal started not from real fresh atom's center position Reason is absolute motion
Electron way around atom center = ellipse ! not circle



Story of the image => http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901


********************
GALLILEO below paragraph is right now in each books physics
***********************************
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."

*****************
Marosz we can describe each motion respect to apparent point
Apparent point = Virtual point it is not object BUT this point is very important for many experiment and test that we can make inside own coordination system that is moving( constant V)

How to start very long travel and not use so many fuel
( my small daughter told me dady please stop and wait ...)

If we will statr rocket opposite to main Earth velocity arrow
( absolute velocity ) the rocket will slown down or STOP ( Earth and SUN will be continue own constant motion )

*******************************

Light ----> MEDIUM(air) ---30km/s--> <-----LIGHT

light ---> e------C--------------e <----light

First test in Poland



first test
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )
> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

HOW MANY AIR WILL GO LEFT AND HOW MANY AIR WILL GO TO RIGT



WHAT ABOUT Hz ( VIBRATION TEST )




Last edited by newton; 10/03/13 06:57 AM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
ORAC
when You feel pain please think About STARS smile







EINSTEIN FIRST DEMAND ?

GRAVITATION = CONSTANT ACCELERATION


MAROSZ (ME) PLEASE SHOW ME BODY INSIDE THE UNIVERS THAT HAVE CONSTAN ACCELERATION

CONSTANT ACCELERATION = THAT EXIST INFINITY SOURCE OF ENERGY
( NOT EXIST PEPETUM MOBILE aslo INFINITY SOURCE OF ENERGY NOT EXIST !!!! )

GGRAVITATION = CONSTANT SLOWDOWN ???
ALSO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE EACH BODY WILL STOP

CONSTANT ROTATION ? ( we can recognize different between rotation and gravitation ) figure skating and the law of conservation of angular momentum

MODERN PHYSICS NEED MANY NEW TEST AND PEOPLE WHO ARE OPEN
NOT CLOSED !!!

Last edited by newton; 10/03/13 08:15 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I thought all they needed was snikers laugh


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
snikers and hamer ?


( how many energy use body ( guy who keep hammer)


not this what see observer from sun but snikers is more important

energy is absolute not relative

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Are You trying to tell me that observer from sun can evaluate
above situation ( or pain is relative)

for example respect to star this guy will not feel pain ?

relativity = one big JOKE

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
No newton you are the joke ... and yes everyone is laughing at you smile

I have tried to correct you and showed patience but you seem to have some form of ADHD/ADD and appear to need medication which you probably can't afford so it's not your fault.

Last edited by Orac; 10/03/13 07:13 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209

energy is absolute
time also
dimmension also

methode that use observers can not change facts

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again you are wrong and have been clearly shown why

Quantum Mechanics says space can not be absolute because it has to be like that or otherwise the atom would collapse.

Unless you can explain all the things Quantum Mechanics does and build a stable atom you have to face the fact you are wrong.

As Quantum Mechanics and relativity do not conflict Einstein is on fairly solid ground and your garbage is exactly that GARBAGE.

Surely it must be getting into your head by now and you just look silly.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Orac You showed me very nice link please see pendulum animation

>>> "BIG MR" Orac showed me this link to learn me physics

let me ask You about pendulum animation

it is clear potencial energy ( "snikers" )

we know that pendulum is moving with Earth

m -------> 30 km/s



please take a pencil and evaluate how many energy ( potencial energy ) will use pendulum for change velocity from 30 km/s to
30 km/s + 1 m/s

and please evaluate how many energy ( potencial ) need the same mass to change velocity form 30 km/s - 1m/s ( pendulum go opposite to Earth motion )


ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT ENERY IS RELATIVE ?

ORAC ... always look at the SUN ???
You will feel lower pain ?



Pendulum work ?

please see animation what is it apparent point
and please be so smart and try explain gravitation problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif


please add to above animation Square Law for Waves




You are moving or the source is moving ? ask You self about
doppler ( red/ blue ) AND ...AND how far YOU ARE FROM THE SOURCE ( level of signal is important or not ???)




Ohhh one more picture WHAT IF EXIST ONLY ONE BODY INSIDE THE UNIVERSE ( velocity not exist ??? REALY )





Brightness of picture WEST and EAST are different
camera not measure the same power of the signal
I don't know right now only one
I need repeat my test inside VACUUM

first test
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )
> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg

Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:07 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Of coarse energy is relative IT REQUIRES MOVEMENT OR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN OR POSSIBLY HAPPEN.

I did a thread earlier asking people was energy real ... perhaps you should like to think about that problem ... prove to me energy is real how would you do that?

The whole point of Quantum Mechanics is it defines a vacuum as not an empty void of space but a seemingly empty void bristling with energy.

Watch a bird sit on power lines there is energy in the power lines but it doesn't kill the bird ... why?

The voltage is relative, the energy is relative everything is relative.

If everything was not relative the bird would be dead because you can't contain the forces.


That's the point of the atom it has to withstand the forces of the entire universe if you want absolute.


That is what is so important about the atom you can't make an atom work in an absolute frame and that's why you can't spin the marbles and make a model of it.

The idea of absolute is absolutely dead has been for 100 years and a nutcase like yourself can't will life back into it.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
LOOK ON YOUR TABLE MASS IS NOT MOVING !!!

NO ....NO... This mass is moving respect to SUN
this mass = perpetum mobie
but You need change point of view for REAL WORLD

relative energy :):):):)

SO PERPETUUM EXIST !!! ( ohh respect to other STAR this mass can have more biger Energy ) ??? how many energy we have in the universe = how many point of view we have ?????

NICE PHYSICS very NICE


Train 100 km/h ( respect to apparent earth position )

pendulum m ----> plastycyline

The same pendulum

Train 150 !!! km/h

pendulum m -> plastycyline

POTENCIAL ENERGY WAS EXCHANGE FOR KINETIC ENERGY

HOW MANY ENERGY = 100 km/h + 1 m/s
HOW MANY ENERGY = 150 km/h + 1 m/s

PLEASE EVALUATE WHAT WILL FEEL PLASTYCYLINE ?


Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:19 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Read again ... OR POTENTIAL TO MOVE

I know English is not native to you but that bit is important.

See even in classic garbage physics you write

F = M x A

So you develop a force equal to mass times the acceleration

If nothing moves acceleration A = 0

F = M x 0 = 0

The only exception to all that is POTENTIAL ENERGY

In garbage classic physics you sort of have to define POTENTIAL ENERGY as having many forms gravity, chemical, nuclear etc.

You sort of view it as stored energy it's not accurate but it does for explaining it to layman. You need GR and QM to explain it properly and they are simply to complicated for the layman to get their head around.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:32 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Lets give you a more interesting problem to think about


Aliens come along and install a dome around earth and image of the sun that radiates light. The how they do it is not important it is just to stop us dying for the next bit.


They then start towing earth thru space .... do we notice anything?

If you were smart you would have worked it out you won't notice anything because earths gravity is relative. Forces from outside like the sun appear to act on the middle point on the earth not us the problem of the atom all over again smile

The aliens are mean and they push earth into a death spiral around a black hole do we notice anything?

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:37 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
"F = M x A" ???

PROBLEM IS WHAT IS MASS FOR YOU ???

FOR EINSTEIN GRAVITATION MASS = INERTIAL MASS ???

how many air will go to left or right side of rocket ?
( rocket = spaceship far away from gravitation )




child 1...ball --->....Child 2


Child 1...ball --->
..........^
........child2

What is more easy perpendicular push or opposite push
( where finger will feel lower resistance )
Why Aikido Fighters prefer perpendicular direction ???

Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:42 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
There are actually two types of mass Newton be very careful here which do you want to talk about.

Again the Mass part in the equation in normal classic garbage you sort of have to approximate.


For Einstein MASS is not inertial mass in any way it is a potential energy created by the 4th dimension of time for Einstein .. SO DEFINITELY NOT INERTIAL MASS FOR EINSTEIN.

I think you are getting mass and weight confused can I get you to please read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight

Quote:

In everyday usage, the mass of an object is often referred to as its weight though these are in fact different concepts and quantities. In scientific contexts, mass refers loosely to the amount of "matter" in an object (though "matter" may be difficult to define), whereas weight refers to the force experienced by an object due to gravity.[1] In other words, an object with a mass of 1.0 kilogram will weigh 9.8 newtons (newton is the unit of force, while kilogram is the unit of mass) on Earth (its mass multiplied by the gravitational field strength). Its weight will be less on Mars (where gravity is weaker), more on Saturn, and negligible in space when far from any significant source of gravity, but it will always have the same mass.



YOU ARE TURNING MASS INTO WEIGHT .. A NO NO NEWTON


We are well aware of the problem with MASS (M) is classic physics and no you can't solve it.

The short form of trying to prove energy is real in classic physics also meets the same fate you can't prove energy is real either. One of the interesting things about QM is it does prove that energy is real if it wasn't the whole theory wouldn't work smile

As I said if you stopped trying to insist on an answer because your science is terrible and just ask questions you would learn a lot.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 01:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Gravitation = Acceleration

above FIRS EINSTEIN's POSTULATE

show me body that has constant acceleration !!!???

if exist constant acceleration exist infinity energy that is the reason of acceleration ?

we all know that not exist infinity energy !!!
we all know that not exist perpetum !!!
we all know what we schuld do with theory that not cooperate with
real live ....



Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 01:46 AM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
INERTIA = HUGE QUESTION ???

for me it is kinetic energy ( ABSOLUTE KINETIC ENERGY !!!)

it s the reason why pendulum not chage direction with Earth

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: newton
Gravitation = Acceleration

above FIRS EINSTEIN's POSTULATE



Not sure who told you that garbage here for your reference and so you don't repeat more stupidity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

Quote:

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion. OR: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.


What you have said is clearly wrong


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Motion it is not " I'm moving respect to sun "

Motion = I was in point 1 now I'm in point 2

what is it point 1 ? it is apparent point !!!

below animation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209

ORAC I spoke about below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

do You understand problem ?

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
There is no problem, I am having issues with your accuracy.


You said the first postulate ... I gave you the first postulate.


Apparently what you meant was the equivalence principle I am sorry not a mind reader be accurate.

The wiki site does a reasonable job at explaining it all and the tests we have done on it.


Now let me be clear as we can't define gravity by science exactly right now there is room for Einstein to be wrong.

HOWEVER

Your garbage doesn't even pass the basic stupidity test so whether Einstein is right or wrong YOUR garbage is wrong.


Do you understand Newton I am a scientist I really don't care if Einstein is right or wrong or if you were right ... I would be excited if you were right but I can't get your ideas past the stupidity tests that means they are dead in the water.

The whole of science is not built around Einstein and relativity it's actually the other way around relativity is the only theory that doesn't violate some of the more fundamental physics and observations .. you know the atom, nuclear energy, QM and all those rather tricky physics that you can't explain and haven't got a clue on.

Can I suggest you worry less about Einstein and worry about MAROSZ and whether his ideas are feasible and whether his theory holds together because at the moment you look rather silly.

May I be bold as to suggest that for someone who has so little knowledge of physics attempting to rewrite it may be a little beyond you ... just a thought ... try understanding it first.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 03:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I have a question for you and I want you to answer it carefully and accurately because I understand most of your argument and see the errors but not all.

I DO NOT WANT OTHER EXAMPLES OR NEW DRAWINGS ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION.


The bit that is confusing me is you jump between the experiment with brightness of the laser etc and then above you start talking about gravity.


My problem I am struggling with from science is both have a small part to do with Einstein but they really are unrelated.

It is so weird the way you mix them up with almost an anti-Einstein story I was almost thinking you were just a neo-Nazi who hates jews and that's your logic because I can't understand your logic for the life of me.

From a science standpoint we say light has no mass (it has momentum but that's another story) and hence light is unaffected by gravity. You have gravity lensing past suns etc which has it's own reason but by and large light is unaffected by gravity.


From a science point of view gravity it is all a bit of a mess because we don't have a force carrier for it yet so science could not care a less if the whole gravity story was wrong. On the other side that to do with electromagnetism and light the theory is among the most scientifically understood things there is and why getting these two mixed up is very weird.


So I need you to answer in your theory is light affected by gravity because you seem to chop and change between what are two very different things for me?


Stick to answering that question please I already understand most of your theory and where it all goes wrong but what you think with that bit confuses me.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 07:21 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
I not showing any theory
I joust made test my camera see different brightness of picture

west and east and 220 km/s also 1,8 km/s ( polish geographic wide and perpendicular direction to 30 km/s ) I also made angle test


Earth have 66.66 degree



Sun
i

i
i
i
Earth ----> 30 km/s

I move up my camera in home about 24 degree ( 24:00 time )
and I also sow more darkness picture ( compare to ideal parallel
direction -----( water level ) )

I know that We can do this what was target for Michelson -Morley
( I don't know reason 100% )

in all my posts I'm joust trying find reason

Why I can measure West and East different


1 Idea One ( light goes isotropy respect to apparent point ) we know that the source in past was in point 1 now is in point 4

VERY IMPORTANT Animation !!! ( not my own physics but books )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif




My test in home




2 SECOUND IDEA

I read about IDEA 2 on this forum ( That was information that I get from Your post ) Light can be take by medium ( medium can change light direction if medium is moving )


camera ----Air-----bulb --------> 30 km/s

???
light ----> Air ---- > 30 km/s <-----Light


Air = Anisotropy medium ( reason is 30 km/s )


Idea 2 and Idea 1 ???

In physics very important are rules ( fundaments )
in My opinion Inertia of Air is different for light signal

Inertia mass and gravitation mass are not the same
OLD NEWTON never mix two definition ( gravitation mass and inertia mass for OLD SIR NEWTON never be one and the same definition ) Old Newton similar like me try find absolute motion definition . ( my test = that we can recognize absolute zero ??? )

please imagine ( only imagine ) below situation

Camera 1 ----Air----Bulb-----Air Camera 2

absolute zero motion = Camera 1 and camera 2 measure the same brightness

Exist a lot of new questions abot mass and inertia
I think that inertia = absolute kinetic energy
( You are inside car and You not close belt ) what about pendulum test ( inside car You see problem ) please look on pendulum ( Earth = Car ) pendulum not chage direction of move Earth during pendulum is working change position

Why we have huge problem to see pendulum line motion different
1 ( many people think that classical mechanic is very old and we no need research )

2 30 km/s+10 m/s or 30km/s - 10 m/s ( 10 m/s VS 30 km/s it is not so big percent )

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Please read above post it is not next "genial" theory but I'm trying explain why camera see not the same power of signal

Bulb is the same
Distance is the same
Only direction and 30 km/s or ... 220 km/s ... or ...
are different

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again it doesn't help

You have light being used to test but then you say "gravitation mass and inertia mass"


What the hell is the relationship between them?????


Answer the question stop adding in new stuff it just makes it more confusing.


UNDERSTAND I CAN'T WORK OUT WHAT LIGHT HAS TO DO WITH GRAVITY IN YOUR THEORY????

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 07:31 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Many people can see above post can read my idea ( I can make mistake it is natural ) but people who see what I did have own opinion they must have own opinion

I'm happy that You see my test and read about my test ( please repeat and try explain why ????

Michelson Morley and My test ???
Many people before Me
were try find West East different

I already showed test (not zero 100% sure )

Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 07:33 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again you didn't answer the question ... light and gravity what is the connection I can't see it and you haven't explained it.

I have told you I can exactly tell you what will happen and why with your experiment there is no secret you won't listen. Given an experimental setup I am pretty certain I could tell you the exact result but it will vary greatly on each setup.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 07:37 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209

Light and Gravitatio ???

What About medium and gravitation not light and gravitation

Medium near huge mass and electrons closed to huge mase ???

Light = Energy but Medium medium is more closer to SUN that is moving or more far from the SUN ( 20 km/s ) ???




Medium ??? Medium Inertia ???

light --->.....AIR ----> 30 km/s... <----Light

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
What the hell is that garbage .. are you serious ????


So you want science to listen to you but it's to hard for you to explain the interaction or lack of it ... OR ANYTHING USEFUL ... in your theory.


Great theory Newton ...... useful for what ???????


You and your theory are a total waste of time and space and I am done.

MODIFIED NEWTON THEORY:

Light exists, Gravity exist ... No idea what relationships between them but we will make it up as we go.



Sums up your rubbish ..... I was right this is an episode of dumb and dumber.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 07:46 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
I don't know we must repeat my test in ligo pipe

Inside Vacuum I schuld see zero different position (at the end of pipe )

Inside Medium I schould see different position (at the end of pipe )


We have Vertical different and Horisontal different

Vertical = gravitation change light direction
Horizontal = we have absoute velocity

We must very good calibrate laser and target and repeat test inside medium ( water ) ( air ) and inside VACUUM

Medium can feel gravitation Light not
or
Light and Medium can feel gravitation
or
only light feel gravitation

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
If you can't answer any of that Newton then go away and come back when you can.

That blunt enough for you because until that time discussing this is pointless.


At the moment the only valid reason I can find for your rubbish is you are a neo-Nazi who hates that Einstein gets science credit because it does seem to be him that you are so anti ... not anything actually scientific or sensible. You are even confusing different aspects of his work and your answer is now you don't know but you are sure science is wrong.

Last edited by Orac; 10/04/13 08:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Michelson Morley test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment


Marosz TEST 2012 (Poland ) in my home

BULB -----Camera Eest <---- -30 km/s

BULB -----Camera East ----> +30 km/s

Camera can see different brightness of picture

BR ORAC
( it is not so important fact smile
You have right QM smile = PHYSICS
PHYSICS FUNDAMENTS and QM = ZERO CONECTIONS smile ???

Last edited by newton; 10/04/13 09:19 AM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Inverted Squar Law
very old efect each photocamera use below fact




We also very good know Doppler for light




sensor ----> 30km/s ----distance ---- source -----> 60 km/s

sensor will register RED SHIFT


Marosz's Discovery POLAND 2012 Michelson Morley + Intensity of Signal

Doppler it is not only Red /Blue shift ( Hz shift )
Very important is Inverted Square Law and Intensity !!!

Each Wave has got frequency and amplitude

sensor ----> 30km/s --- distance --- source -----> 60 km/s

after short time
distance sesor---source will be bigger ( distance rise up )
(the source escape )
biger distance = lower intensity of signal !!!

What is it apparent point ?

please see animation !!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

POLAND FIRST TEST !!!

first test AIR
> http://youtu.be/XF_npmQ8kGY

first pictures ( brightness - photoshop 10 histogram) west ( -30km/s ) and East (+30 km/s )
> http://youtu.be/O9k-zidfJZg


first test WATER
http://youtu.be/74TwfhzJnIA

SOLAR SYSTEM and WITER / SUMMER
apparent distance doppler shift



Apparent distance it is not only one reason why camera in my home measured not the same brightness of picture West -East
Exist also Medium problem " Medium inertia and fotoemision

please see what water can do with light

http://youtu.be/hBQ8fh_Fp04


My test in home

camera ------ medium ----> 30 km/s <<<<Light

Light >>> medium ----> 30 km/s ------ camera


Above I showed parralel problem exist also perpendicular version of the test inside vacuum

During time T light made distance "a"
how many meters during time T made rocket ? = how



how many meters made rocket ? = how many sensors on opposite rocket's wall will register laser light

GRAVITATION and COSTANT !!! velocity + doppler
apparent distance shift

http://youtu.be/DUW3zDAUksc

What about my post right now You can read in books ?

GALLILEO below paragraph is right now in each books !!!
" Galileo postulated his relativity hypothesis: any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments (it is understood that the apparatuses they use for these experiments move with them).
This idea has a very important consequence: velocity is not absolute. This means that velocity can only be measured in reference to some object(s), and that the result of this measurment changes if we decide to measure the velocity with respect to a diferent refernce point(s). Imagine an observer traveling inside a windowless spaceship moving away from the sun at constant velocity. Galileo asserted that there are no mechanical experiments that can be made inside the rocket that will tell the occupants that the rocket is moving .
The question ``are we moving'' has no meaning unless we specify a reference frame (are we moving with respect to that star'' is meaningful). This fact, formulated in the 1600's remains very true today and is one of the cornerstones of Einstein's theories of relativity."

MAROSZ - WE CAN SOLVE ABOVE PROBLEM
" ROCKET WITHOUT WINDOW " !!!
S



Marosz - how to use above discovery to explain Mr Einstein mistake

not exist C+ Vsource !!! exist only C




I'm Maciej Marosz
I love create - my other patents and ideas

>>> http://tesla4.blogspot.com/


above I shoved very important tool that have got many applications ( it is not theoretical work )

NEW INTERNAL GPS TYPE

WE NEED ONLY THREE CONSTANT VELOCITY
AND ASTRONOMY TIME ALGORITMS

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DYWc_0NfHZg/UanNFZgUMoI/AAAAAAAAA8A/6-XEoqsqy4U/s1600/333.jpg

ZERO GPS SIGNAL PROBLEM ?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0mRKHtmH-YM/UK8pzwJ6TmI/AAAAAAAAAP0/FHh7T5UvNNY/s1600/gps2.JPG

BIG FISH ( whales ) has got inside head big empty chamber inside chamber small source of signal that is able travel without air

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tMjoAujRQ5o/UK8pspZUQQI/AAAAAAAAAPs/87K5muMoS7Q/s1600/gps1.JPG


WHY WE HAVE WINTER and SUMMER ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sCSMCFPwLR8/UK8qPXCcAEI/AAAAAAAAAQE/8GD8vR83VIg/s1600/hot.JPG


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-agRtwFCVnPE/UYndx-VIeVI/AAAAAAAAA3c/lvRaonCImP4/s1600/WSM.JPG


NEW SYSTEM FOR AIPLANE /ROCKET

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AdDum0dDSQY/UK...66666666666.JPG


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PqEJjEZQisM/UKjVcJCGp9I/AAAAAAAAALs/0XOxA_hceK4/s1600/wwwwwwwwwwwww.JPG


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xCq4esIpFmw/USouSs6D9-I/AAAAAAAAAqo/AMikzS7lwxU/s1600/xxx.JPG



EXPLAIN DARK MATTER PROBLEM AND BLACK HOLES MODEL

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7aNEnYJIEBU/UVRx1T-PBjI/AAAAAAAAAww/UVzA5j7ymfU/s1600/black+holes.JPG

I SEE AIRPLANE BUT I CAN NOT HEAR AIRPLAIN ?
WHAT IF I NOT SEE AND NOT HEAR AIRPLAINE

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QDhADrDXABA/UVl_hphDVsI/AAAAAAAAAxc/skybrn6FqbQ/s1600/darkmaterr.JPG



MAROSZ's AETHER MODEL

below IDEA can be the best computer CPU model ( many diffrernt HZ - zero HOT problem ( zero signal lost ) - gravitation is able help us change information's adress ) many informations in one and the same time ( ideal parallel magistrale )

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JSuPkGLL5RA/UVFJrlAx17I/AAAAAAAAAuA/rC_sxo68KBE/s1600/aether2.JPG



Last edited by newton; 10/27/13 09:18 AM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Doppler we can measure Red/Blue and !!! Intensity shift !!!

http://youtu.be/fT-D-J2HmDs

more simple explain
http://youtu.be/PNYiejnl0t0

Perpendicular test version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY625g-0Qd8

Gravitation and apparent distance problem !!!
http://youtu.be/DUW3zDAUksc

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5