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 (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
paul #55615 03/03/16 04:36 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
try thinking about a cathode ray tube as in a old style
tv tube ...

Paul ... that's a trainwreck.

You are talking about an electron google cathode ray tube.
Electrons have charge you can deflect them via the charge.

Light photons have no charge and no mass .. NEWSFLASH NOTHING DEFLECTS THEM.

In GR you can lense them around very strong gravity sources but you don't believe in GR so no issue here.

You can only classically DIFFRACT photons which your videos show and that requires a medium. Controlling the medium with a magnet or a electricity is not the same thing.

Now show me a video of light beam being deflected in a vacuum please .... as you say the have electric and magnetic fields so show me them being deflected like a CRT.

Quote:
ets see a link to the test you speak of... LOL laugh

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/05/rotating-cylinder-puts-a-new-spin-on-slow-light

All that happens is you will slow the light ... oopppsie Paul physics failed again.

The only way to control photon spin classically is with polarizers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer) .. read it.

As you have reached my stupidity limit in this discussion I am pretty well done here .. please don't direct questions back to me I am not interested in Paul physics it's in the same league as Marosz physics. I don't discuss pseudoscience junk please take this up with others. I don't need to practice my English that bad that I am willing to discuss lunatic rantings.

Last edited by Orac; 03/03/16 05:15 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Bill S. #55616 03/03/16 05:14 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Im trying to get my head round this.

Quote:
1. The laser pointer is rotating at 10,000rpm.

yes because the laser pointer is inserted into the drill
press as if it were a drill bit.

Quote:
2. Does the emerging beam rotate at 10,000rpm?


the entire beam would rotate


Quote:
3. Is this rotation imparted by the rotation of the emitting element?


the emitting element is rotating so any photons that it
emits will also rotate.


Quote:
4. Is this rotation imparted by friction between the laser lens and the light?



the laser lens is rotating at the same rpm as the laser beam
so the light passing through the lens would feel the same
resistance to movement as it would if the laser were not rotating.


Quote:
5. Wouldnt rotation of the beam impart helical movement to the photons, rather than causing each photon to spin, but maintain a straight course?


yes the photons would have a helical rotation but all of
the emitted photons would be spinning in unison and travel
in a straight line , if the laser pointer only emitted a
single photon then the single photon would spin at 10,000 rpm
and there wouldnt be a formation of a helical shape of the
resultant light beam but since the laser beam is much wider than the width of a single photon then yes the beam would be
helical.


Quote:
6. If 5 is correct, would you see this as an example of photons travelling faster than c?


the photons at the outside edge of the beam would be
traveling faster than the photons at the center of the
rotating beam because they are further from the center
of the beam , but they would not travel faster linearly
than the photons at the center of the beam.

so even though the overall photon beam would be traveling
at c if in a vacuum the photons at the edge of the beam
would be traveling slightly faster than c due to the
combination of linear and angular movement of the photons
but not much faster.

unless the photons have decided to adhere to the Einstein
speed limit.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55617 03/03/16 06:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
unless the photons have decided to adhere to the Einstein
speed limit.


I guess the choice between faster than c, and time dilation is an easy one for you.

I sometimes wonder if I should regret leaving (most) certainties behind many years ago. Life was simpler then, but not as interesting. smile


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55620 03/03/16 10:49 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I guess the choice between faster than c, and time dilation is an easy one for you.


yep

Quote:
I sometimes wonder if I should regret leaving (most) certainties behind many years ago. Life was simpler then, but not as interesting.


I'm sure you remember all the talk about allowing science
to be more interesting to attract more students into the
sciences ... they did , it happened , and now they are stuck
with it because of the money that the interesting science
makes for those who make the money from it...

I'm sure they have people who understand how things will
actually happen as a check to ensure the gullible hordes
don't make any actual disasters occur as they are playing
in the fantasy realm of modern science.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55621 03/04/16 04:29 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul, Science is bad evil money grabbers ... post count 2 since discussing this continued repetition smile

We got the message of what you believed in every post before now.

You are adding nothing new to discussion and just repeating the same spam slogans.

If all you want to do is spam the same message then please make your own thread and spam away, the same situation is imposed on Marosz. You can say whatever you like just please don't pollute every thread and make it difficult for people to actually discuss details.

Last edited by Orac; 03/04/16 04:43 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55624 03/04/16 12:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:

You are adding nothing new to discussion and just repeating the same spam slogans.


I have to take some responsibility there, I did hand Paul that one, on a plate; mea culpa!


There never was nothing.
Orac #55625 03/04/16 04:37 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
are you really that dense orac?

here is the question you posted to me.

Quote:
Say what ... can you give me an example of an electric or magnetic field deflecting light?


I showed you several videos where light is bent / deflected
using both an electric field and a magnetic field.

in the below video you can SEE the light if you couldn't
see the light then it would not be light now would it.

you can SEE the light bending / deflecting.

are you now going to say that the light SEEN in the video
and SEEN bending / deflecting is not actually light?



if the light SEEN in the video is not light then
please tell me why you can see it...

also

the brightness difference of the light showing through the electric coil in the other video I posted is not the
result of light passing through a medium it is the result
of light passing through a magnetic field that causes the change in brightness that is shown in the video.

also

the link that you posted about the ruby spin medium
could not be used to show the effects or results of a
spinning laser light like I have posted as the light
in the experiment is a image that is projected onto
a spinning ruby medium ... theres a big difference
there.

it does however show that light can be bent inside
a medium without using gravity or a electric field
or a magnet.

before you post your garbage that you find in your
fantasy trash cans you might at least try to see if
anything that you ever post actually relates to the
things that you are posting about.

your entire argument is void concerning the long
winded pat on your back with your hand attempt to
debunk my post on the spinning laser light but don't
start crying yet there is a easy way to check it.

if your BS science is right about the speed of light having
a set speed limit then the photons at the edge of the
spinning laser beam will arrive at a target after the
photons at the center of a spinning laser beam.

because nothing can travel faster than the speed of
light not even light itself, right Einstein!

if your BS science is right the laser beam would
form a cone shape !

with the tip of the cone being the photons in the
center of the laser beam.

I'm going to say that the photons will all arrive at
the same time.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55626 03/04/16 10:04 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
if your BS science is right about the speed of light having a set speed limit then the photons at the edge of the
spinning laser beam will arrive at a target after the photons at the center of a spinning laser beam.


Paul, that's only half of the "BS science". The spiralling photons would "experience" time dilation, so they should arrive at the same time as the central photons.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55628 03/05/16 02:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul, that's only half of the "BS science". The spiralling photons would "experience" time dilation, so they should arrive at the same time as the central photons.


LOL

I didn't think of that because I don't believe that time
can dilate , but that shouldn't be a real problem as the
time dilation couldn't possibly cause the photons to
arrive at the same time if different laser rotation speeds
and if needed wider laser beams are used ...

this way if they try to claim that time dilation causes
the photons to arrive at the same time then through the
use of varying laser rotation speeds and laser width
a conclusion that the photons are experiencing time
dilation could not be found to be valid unless they prop
up the claim with even more false math that would reflect
the variations in speed and laser width.

I would love to see the experiment myself.

but modern science wouldn't carry out an experiment
that would lessen the popularity of the magic show.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55629 03/05/16 03:22 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul you call me dense the title of your video is deflection of a electron beam.

You like Marosz fail even the basics, an electron is not a photon, and your whole post requires no discussion.

Now we are done here fool I don't do Marosz like stupidity discussions. Please talk to someone else about it if you really are so intellectually challenged you don't get what is happening, I am treating this as a religious crackpot trolling because it is beyond stupid.

Now on my English lesson whats a less insulting way of saying "beyond stupid" that is when something is so stupid it can only be a troll, deliberate misinformation or a blatant lie.

Last edited by Orac; 03/05/16 03:48 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #55630 03/05/16 02:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Now on my English lesson whats a less insulting way of saying "beyond stupid"


Unconscionably nave ? smile


There never was nothing.
Orac #55631 03/05/16 04:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul you call me dense the title of your video is deflection of a electron beam.


it doesn't matter what the title of the video was.

its clear that the light or photons are being bent
to the same angle as the electron beam.

looking at the beam on a macroscopic scale the individual
electrons that are emitted from the electron gun are extremely
far apart and on our scale they are apx as far away from each other as a grain of sand in the center of a football stadium
is away from a grain of sand sitting on the top row of the
stadium.

if the photons are not being bent by the electric field
then they would not follow the same path as the electrons
now would they.

your probability trash couldn't even solve for why the
photons are capable of exciting any other electron after it
is emitted from a electron much less how it could accomplish
the needed chain of excitation and emission all the way to the end of the electron beam , so unless you can show how the
photons are following the curve of the electrons then the
only way that the photons could possibly be curving WITH
the electrons is if they are being directed along the same curve by the field.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55632 03/06/16 05:08 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul you are either, as Bill S says unconscionably nave, or just plain ignorant and uneducated. The design of the experiment is deliberate, the fact you unlike most children (the target audience of the experiment) don't understand it is not my concern. As I have stated the title of the video is accurate and will leave it at that and I have nothing to add.

You like Marosz are free to believe whatever you like and I really don't care and why should I. When you have something not so unconscionably nave I may choose to comment. I do the same thing to Marosz ignoring his ridiculous posts and children drawings which aren't worthy of commenting, although often I get a laugh at as I did with yours. Your or any other laymans opinion has no bearing on anything, and has no significance except to you. You always come across to me as if I should care what you believe and it is important, which I assume is your religious background where converting unbelievers is important.

For now you are on the ignore list like Marosz. You, at least when you are not doing anti-science rants, can construct a reasonable sentence so I will simply wait for the subject to return to something more intelligent that justifies a comment.

Last edited by Orac; 03/06/16 06:55 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55633 03/06/16 04:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
as Bill S says unconscionably nave


from what I read you asked a question about how to word
something in a nicer way and Bill S told you how to do it
he wasn't saying that (I) was unconscionably nave just
to set the record straight.

I would still like to have your reply as to why you can see
the electron beam in the video I posted.

1) the electron stream being emitted from an electron gun
passes through a focusing tube that directs the electrons
through a narrow orifice at the end of the electron gun.

2) the only light that could possibly exit the end of the
electron gun is the light that is generated from the heating of the cathode way in the back of the electron gun.

3) any light that might exit the end of the electron gun
would follow a straight line not a curved path and certainly not the same path as the electron beam unless the light is
also being bent by the electric fields.

4) in the video you can see the light that is traveling
in a straight line as the electron beam is moved.
the light generated from the heat of the cathode continues
in a straight line while the LIGHT of the electron beam
is being curved away with the electron beam.

5) electrons are invisible ! so when you see the LIGHT
of a electron beam you are not seeing the electrons you
are seeing photons of light.




just because your brain doesn't want to accept things for
what they are due to the washing it has undergone does not
change the fact that those things are actually occurring
in reality.

is it true that you don't have the ability to answer the
questions because your degree of physics knowledge is
really very very low.

you never do want to answer any valid questions concerning
your BS science and that is one of the main reasons that I
fully believe that your BS science is truly BS science.

your constant religious rants have no meaning coming from you
or anyone else on this science forum so why don't you attempt
to be slightly scientific and stick to the discussion and
try and avoid the non scientific jargon that you seem to
know more about than science according to the answers that
you never give when asked.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55634 03/06/16 10:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
A thought (possibly nave). In the video we are viewing the demonstration from about 90 degrees to the propagation direction of the beam. Unless there is a fairly dense atmosphere in the chamber, why is the beam visible?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #55635 03/07/16 12:28 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Unless there is a fairly dense atmosphere in the chamber, why is the beam visible?


heres a video of a crt tube that has argon gas in the tube
which makes the electron stream visible.



and link to a electron gun that has high vacuum in the
tube.

http://www.kimphys.com/electron_guns/catalog_PDFs/Gun_intro_prelim.pdf

the tube in the above electron gun has a vacuum pressure
of apx 1 x 10^-7 torr so theres really no atmosphere
as 1 torr is .0013 atm

light propagates in all directions so no matter what angle
you view the tube from you would see the light beam
generated by the heat of the cathode and the light beam
of the emitted electron stream.

your probably thinking that because light propagates in
all directions the light photons from the cathode are
exciting the electrons in the electron stream and then
re-emitting them and the light photons
strike the next electron further down in the stream
without direction of any sort so the propagation of light
along the electron stream is due only to the electrons being
there and the light propagating in all directions.

if that were the case then knowing that the atoms
that form the argon gas molecules also have electrons
should mean that the light that is seen would not follow
any path at all because the crt tube is filled with electrons
even before the beam is started.

the only light that that we can see with our eyes is
the photons of visible light and the video filmed
the light photons of visible light.

you need to think about a focused light beam and why
does light from a laser beam travel in a straight line
and is not vectored away from that straight line by
the electrons in the air that we breath !!!

why does a laser beam travel in a straight line.

a focused electron beam is similar to a focused laser beam.

and then ask yourself how could the electron beam be
emitting visible light photons that are directed
in the same path as the electron stream in the same
manner as the beam of a laser.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Orac #55636 03/07/16 01:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted By: orac
Light photons have no charge and no mass .. NEWSFLASH NOTHING DEFLECTS THEM.


that's strange because we haven't been able to see inside
a black hole yet...

and GR has nothing to do with reality , the reality is
that gravity existed long before Einstein or his relatives did.

perhaps the black holes don't yet understand that they should
be allowing light to escape them because nothing can deflect light photons. laugh

if a photon has no mass or charge then how do the black holes
swallow up all them photons of light and keep them from being seen?

NEWSFLASH I THINK YOUR WRONG AGAIN !!!!!







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
paul #55637 03/07/16 02:20 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Paul, you clearly like Marosz have a untreated mental condition that precludes you understanding written statements.

Lets try again Paul I am not remotely interested in this discussion, why direct questions at me. The fact you can't work it out is not my problem, and I don't care to set the record straight because you have gone to religious crackpot land. This is like the dinosaurs on the ark just to silly for me to discuss.

Besides it is more fun watching you make a fool of yourself smile

Last edited by Orac; 03/07/16 02:31 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #55638 03/07/16 02:30 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Unless there is a fairly dense atmosphere in the chamber, why is the beam visible?

Seriously Bill S you don't get it?

The beam is visible BY DESIGN you place a gas in that reacts with the energy range of the electrons. The light will spread randomly in all directions from the collision that absorbs the electron. So you lose one electron and gain a photon emission from that point. It's very straight forward.

When I do it for kiddies I use a single electron source with a detector at the electron exit point that emits a sound and a photo multiplier to detect the flash. You either get the sound (the electron got thru with no collision) or you get a flash (collision happened). You never get both and most kiddies instantly get it.

The fact you can see the beam is basically an inefficiency of electrons being absorbed before striking the screen for display which is the purpose of a CRT.

Anyhow that about all I have to say on the matter and I don't intend to debate it because this is like kiddie level physics. This is not something I can take seriously and it smacks of Marosz like discussions completely pointless and very stupid.

Originally Posted By: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray
Cathode rays are invisible, but their presence was first detected in early vacuum tubes when they struck the glass wall of the tube, exciting the atoms of the glass and causing them to emit light, a glow called fluorescence

If you can see the beam it's by design because thats what we wanted to do by using a specific gas ... now do you really want to continue to discuss stupidity? I was getting a really good laugh, it should have taken anyone around 10 sec search to find the beam is normally invisible, except for with the Science a GoGo forum and some of it's whacky inhabitants.

Trainwrecks are can be interesting to watch smile

Last edited by Orac; 03/07/16 06:27 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #55639 03/07/16 12:45 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
The beam is visible BY DESIGN you place a gas in that reacts with the energy range of the electrons


In other words; the photons are not emitted from the electron source, they result from reaction between electrons and gas. so they must curve with the electron beam.


There never was nothing.
Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

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 UsokW
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