Notices
Results 1 to 55 of 55

Thread: The sky

  1. #1 The sky 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    77
    I have a few question regarding light and the sky.


    My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?

    Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The sky 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    I have a few question regarding light and the sky.


    My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?

    Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red?
    Violet light makes up most of the spectrum contained in white light when divided by prism.
    When you put white light through a prism, you will see that the violet is created by the thicker part of the prism.
    It used to be because the prism accelerates light. The thicker the part of the prism the more violet, the thinner the part of the prism the more red.

    But remember a prism is solid and accelerates light/electrons.

    This same reasoning holds true with light being stopped by very thin sheets of gold, that are believed to be 90 percent space or were believed to be 90 percent space. The light that hits the gold accelerates, so that it is no longer in the light band, when it exits.

    Why is the sky red at sunset? Probably because the amount of atmosphere you are looking through is deep enough and hot enough, to create red light effects. It is able to slow the light down to red light speeds.

    You probably will not get those effects in winter. The light from the sun is slowed in the summer, and this causes the red color. Atmosphere/gas slows things down. Because it is dielectric. Unlike the surface of the moon. One of the reasons the stars are not visible on camera.

    A good telescope uses Argon I believe as a dielectric to slow down rays that are moving faster then light, to light speed so we can see them.

    Your eyes are just the most outrageous electrical sensors there are.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: The sky 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    I have a few question regarding light and the sky.


    My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?
    The atmosphere doesn't absorb the higher frequencies better, it scatters it better. Scattering means that it changes the direction it travels. The sky is blue because this frequency of light is "bounced around" by the atmosphere so much that it is spread out over the whole sky.

    Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red?
    If more of the higher frequencies are scattered out, that only leaves the lower frequenices to be coming from the direction of the Sun, so you see these colors predominately when you look in the direction of Sunset or Sunrise.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: The sky 
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Evie

    Whilst William McCormick has 'interesting' ideas, they're not scienitific mainstream (and not, according to most here, even coherent). So if you're looking for good answers with which to explain textbook statements, be wary of William's.

    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    I have a few question regarding light and the sky.


    My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?
    Scattering is because of refraction, not absorption (in general). As it happens, in the spectrum visible to humans, the atmosphere behaves in that particular manner - refracting the violet end of the spectrum more than the red end (with a relatively smooth gradient in between).

    I cannot explain the quantum mechanical interactions of permittivity and so on (primarily through not knowing a thing about it myself), but you can understand these issues without recourse to that, by merely thinking of school level refraction and internal reflection experiments: the violet component of white light bends more as it goes through a prism than the red component, whih is why we can use prisms to create a spectrum. (If I'm talking about something you haven't done/don't understand, I apologise. Tell me and I'll start again from even more basic ideas - but for now I'm assuming you understand and have seen how a prism works.)

    Now the scattering comes about because of repeated refraction and some internal reflection of the light as it passes through our atmosphere - all the layers of varying density and the atended water vapour, often in suspended drops of water. Since the blue is affected more strongly, it is what the atmosphere is most able to divert in all directions - the reds and other components being likelier to go in straight lines until they hit something opaque and are absorbed.

    That's basically it, as I understand it - though someone more knowledgeable will no doubt be able to explain it better, or even tell me that I'm entirely wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red?
    I always interpret sunsets as simply meaning that from that angle the bluer portions are refracted/scattered so much they do not even get to us, whereas the straighter lines of the red component of sunlight are less bent by the greater thickness of atmosphere between us and the horizon (like looking through a lens sideways inside of from fornt to back) so we get to see them.

    Again, someone more knowledgeable could correct me if I'm badly wrong...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    77
    Thank you for the help that answers all my questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?

    I am telling you that a whole civilization existed in America, and built the things you can no longer build. With velocity as the basis of understanding. Velocity isolated the elements. And did the work to create the periodic table up to element 86.

    Look at some convex lenses. The distance from the focal point and the lens, to the center of the lens may be as much as half the distance, from the focal point to the outer perimeter of the lens.

    That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.

    Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.

    That is just one simple way that you can prove that the speed of light is much faster, then what is claimed.

    What they have been measuring is the amount of time it takes to energize a beam of light. However that is not related to the speed of what actually creates it.

    In other words we would not see a new sun created in another solar system for a long while, as a beam of light energized a path to us. However once lit, if the distant sun went out, we could see that it went out, as it went out.

    We could use equipment here on earth and foretell the coming of such an event as a newly created star in another solar system immediately.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: The sky 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Evie

    Whilst William McCormick has 'interesting' ideas, they're not scienitific mainstream (and not, according to most here, even coherent). So if you're looking for good answers with which to explain textbook statements, be wary of William's.

    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    I have a few question regarding light and the sky.


    My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?
    Scattering is because of refraction, not absorption (in general). As it happens, in the spectrum visible to humans, the atmosphere behaves in that particular manner - refracting the violet end of the spectrum more than the red end (with a relatively smooth gradient in between).

    I cannot explain the quantum mechanical interactions of permittivity and so on (primarily through not knowing a thing about it myself), but you can understand these issues without recourse to that, by merely thinking of school level refraction and internal reflection experiments: the violet component of white light bends more as it goes through a prism than the red component, whih is why we can use prisms to create a spectrum. (If I'm talking about something you haven't done/don't understand, I apologise. Tell me and I'll start again from even more basic ideas - but for now I'm assuming you understand and have seen how a prism works.)

    Now the scattering comes about because of repeated refraction and some internal reflection of the light as it passes through our atmosphere - all the layers of varying density and the atended water vapour, often in suspended drops of water. Since the blue is affected more strongly, it is what the atmosphere is most able to divert in all directions - the reds and other components being likelier to go in straight lines until they hit something opaque and are absorbed.

    That's basically it, as I understand it - though someone more knowledgeable will no doubt be able to explain it better, or even tell me that I'm entirely wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red?
    I always interpret sunsets as simply meaning that from that angle the bluer portions are refracted/scattered so much they do not even get to us, whereas the straighter lines of the red component of sunlight are less bent by the greater thickness of atmosphere between us and the horizon (like looking through a lens sideways inside of from fornt to back) so we get to see them.

    Again, someone more knowledgeable could correct me if I'm badly wrong...
    Have you ever seen a blue laser beam? It appears to disperse less then a red laser. Look at stars they are a white blue light. They travel in a tight path to us for observation. I don't see to many red stars, do you?

    Red disperses more easily because the beam that creates it is of a low velocity. Much of the power from other solar systems suns. Comes to us as rays traveling faster then light. However in our atmosphere, they are slowed to give us a fresh picture of the star in another solar system.

    Thick/deep atmosphere that is hot or excited will slow rays from the sun. As you do that, the color of the sky could easily go from the blue to yellow/orange or red.

    The sun is white if viewed from outer space, without an atmosphere to slow it.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?
    Here you go again. Look. Light is a form of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. EM radiation comes in different forms, but all have the same speed of propagation. The different forms of EM radiation differ not in their speed but in their frequency, and in their wavelength (which is inversely proportional to frequency). Thus, red light has a lower frequency (higher wavelength) than blue light.

    You do have a great imagination (that’s what impresses me). There is a lot of technical stuff in physics and maths you don’t understand – but such is your great imagination that you can “explain” everything with your imaginative (but often wild) theories. You should try writing a science-fiction novel. I’m sure if you wrote one, it would be a bestseller. :-D (I’m not joking, I’m serious. I honestly believe that the sci-fi world would greatly benefit from your input – that you could really make a great contribution there. )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.

    Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.
    Why do "simultaneous", for lack of a better term, light rays have to reach the focal point at the same time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    [quote="William McCormick"]
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?
    [quote/]It is demonstrated every time we examine the spectrum of a distant supernova. If light of different frequencies traveled at different speeds then the different colors of the spectrum would brighten and dim at different times. They do not, they brighten and dim together.



    Look at some convex lenses. The distance from the focal point and the lens, to the center of the lens may be as much as half the distance, from the focal point to the outer perimeter of the lens.

    That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.

    Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.

    That is just one simple way that you can prove that the speed of light is much faster, then what is claimed.
    I seen veryt few lenses which had a focal length half that of the lens radius, but even so: Assume that you have a lens with a 6 cm radius and a 3 cm focal length. Light travels at 30,000,000,000 cm/sec meaning it would take the light only 0.0000000001 of a second longer to travel from the edge to focal point than from the center to the focal point. So what? This isn't anything that is cause any noticable difference in the image. Imperfections in the lens itself would cause more problems.

    What they have been measuring is the amount of time it takes to energize a beam of light. However that is not related to the speed of what actually creates it.

    In other words we would not see a new sun created in another solar system for a long while, as a beam of light energized a path to us. However once lit, if the distant sun went out, we could see that it went out, as it went out.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Stuff and nonsense. If this were true then we would never see the brightening of the Supernovae I mentioned above at all. The light would take longer to "energize a path to us" than the event lasts. The super nova would fade out before we ever saw it.

    Also, certain radar systems would not work if what you claimed were correct.

    These radar sets work by transmitting a radio pulse and then timing how long it takes for the pulse to bounce off an object and return. They have both a transmitter and a receiver. But they are not on at the same time. The transmitter sends the pulse then shuts off, then the receiver turns on to wait for the pulse to return. Since the transmitter has quit transmitting before the receiver is even turned on, according to your view, the receiver would never sense the pulse, and this radar set wouldn't work. But radar sets of this design do work and work just as they are expected to with the present understanding of light transmission and speed.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Great example, Janus!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?
    Here you go again. Look. Light is a form of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. EM radiation comes in different forms, but all have the same speed of propagation. The different forms of EM radiation differ not in their speed but in their frequency, and in their wavelength (which is inversely proportional to frequency). Thus, red light has a lower frequency (higher wavelength) than blue light.

    You do have a great imagination (that’s what impresses me). There is a lot of technical stuff in physics and maths you don’t understand – but such is your great imagination that you can “explain” everything with your imaginative (but often wild) theories. You should try writing a science-fiction novel. I’m sure if you wrote one, it would be a bestseller. :-D (I’m not joking, I’m serious. I honestly believe that the sci-fi world would greatly benefit from your input – that you could really make a great contribution there. )



    Electromagnetic energy is set by the source. There is certainly a velocity involved. An oscilloscope will record a time difference in high and low voltage sources connected to a common terminal. Meaning that the higher voltage not only gets there but gets there more quickly.

    Both sources of power, start at the exact moment. However the high voltage source, delivers more pressure further in the same amount of time.
    Or in the same length wire, it will deliver more pressure in the same amount of time.
    Most electronics are blind to this. And just pump out a frequency. That will be deciphered properly when it gets there and the equipment syncs with the communication.

    Violet delivers the same energy as red in a much shorter time period. The reason is that Violet allows a lot of power to dissipate in the object vibrating at such a high frequency, nearing that of darkness.
    The object is becoming more dense and less abundant with electrons, when violet is visible. That means that ambient radiation is beginning to rocket through the object. Rather then just sit in the object banging around, expanding it, repelling more ambient radiation.

    Violet and its frequency is just the effect of ambient radiation racing through the object more quickly then say red. As the ambient radiation only glances and accelerates off the atoms in the object. The incident of collision is great. Small tiny taps on each atom as ambient radiation passes through.

    With slower colors like red, the ambient radiation rattles back and forth within the object, it takes time to reverse direction in a zigzag pattern or travel.

    That is why high temperature heating coils and elements are so finicky. To remain red, orange or yellow can put a lot of strain on the element. Having ambient radiation continuously, banging around inside of the element, and nearly blowing it apart. It often only takes a slight increase in voltage or a little tap to destroy a hot element, often with explosive force. The reason is that it is super abundant with high repellent ambient radiation electrons.

    I guess my point is that the vibrations of matter are caused by something. It is not the substance. Because we can make almost any substance emit almost any frequency. Baring it does not cause its destruction. It is the ambient radiation that causes the vibrations.

    Jane did you know that women tend to speak at a higher frequency then men? And that higher frequency communication is often ignored or not heard? By actual experimentation. Good thing you type like a man. Ha-ha.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    I am simply astounded by the sheer volume of nonsense you can come up with. You sure love to ascribe a lot of phenomena to ambient radiation, huh? You appear completely oblivious to just how insane your theories are and how blatantly obviously they are wrong. I am also rather sure that no amount of explanation would ever get through to you. You keep on taking over threads and killing them off with your ramblings. I am waiting to see how long it is before you are banned as an indicator of the efficiency of this forum.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    [quote="Janus"]
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?
    [quote/]It is demonstrated every time we examine the spectrum of a distant supernova. If light of different frequencies traveled at different speeds then the different colors of the spectrum would brighten and dim at different times. They do not, they brighten and dim together.



    Look at some convex lenses. The distance from the focal point and the lens, to the center of the lens may be as much as half the distance, from the focal point to the outer perimeter of the lens.

    That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.

    Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.

    That is just one simple way that you can prove that the speed of light is much faster, then what is claimed.
    I seen veryt few lenses which had a focal length half that of the lens radius, but even so: Assume that you have a lens with a 6 cm radius and a 3 cm focal length. Light travels at 30,000,000,000 cm/sec meaning it would take the light only 0.0000000001 of a second longer to travel from the edge to focal point than from the center to the focal point. So what? This isn't anything that is cause any noticable difference in the image. Imperfections in the lens itself would cause more problems.

    What they have been measuring is the amount of time it takes to energize a beam of light. However that is not related to the speed of what actually creates it.

    In other words we would not see a new sun created in another solar system for a long while, as a beam of light energized a path to us. However once lit, if the distant sun went out, we could see that it went out, as it went out.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Stuff and nonsense. If this were true then we would never see the brightening of the Supernovae I mentioned above at all. The light would take longer to "energize a path to us" than the event lasts. The super nova would fade out before we ever saw it.

    Also, certain radar systems would not work if what you claimed were correct.

    These radar sets work by transmitting a radio pulse and then timing how long it takes for the pulse to bounce off an object and return. They have both a transmitter and a receiver. But they are not on at the same time. The transmitter sends the pulse then shuts off, then the receiver turns on to wait for the pulse to return. Since the transmitter has quit transmitting before the receiver is even turned on, according to your view, the receiver would never sense the pulse, and this radar set wouldn't work. But radar sets of this design do work and work just as they are expected to with the present understanding of light transmission and speed.
    Look at the formula for figuring frequency and wave length. It does not need to know how fast the wave or radiation is traveling. It just needs to know, how quickly it can send a transmission and still have the capacitor (receiving antenna), or target aircraft polarize and un- polarize before the next signal.

    Regardless of how quickly it is getting there.
    You could base your radar on power of signal as well. The power that is returned would also tell the story of how far off the plane is. In fact if you did not know, you could do this. You might perceive the time it takes to charge a capacitor that records distance, as the time it took the wave to travel. Rather then the amount of power that is reaching the capacitor or receiving antenna.

    I have built radios before. You can build an am radio with one triac, an antenna and a tuner.

    As far as the color of the super nova, it is not far enough away to cause a problem with the speed of ambient radiation delivering color to you. That is how fast ambient radiation is. What takes place across the Universe, can be detected here almost instantly. Using certain types of sensing equipment.
    Also at those distances light is not what is being sent. A faster velocity communication is being converted over distance, or slowed to near light speed. When you record it. Your apparatus is just receiving what ever it decides is or was the light from the object you are viewing. Much like night vision glasses.

    There is only a slight difference in the velocity of different color particles. I mean a very small difference. That is why it goes undetected by all but the best scientists.

    Once a beam is initiated, it does not take anytime to lower or raise the power or color of light. The channel is open. Just like the carrier wave of a radio, opens the gate on a receiving radio, to power the speaker. At that point, different voltage signals contained in the time frame or cycle or frequency, can be heard as different sounds from the speaker.

    You can do the same thing with light as well. Use it as a radio wave. I believe it was first done in the eighteen hundreds.


    This is from a book with a copyright of 1878.

    They cannot even detect the rays pushing us to earth yet, Gravity. They are electrons, ambient radiation, electricity.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I am simply astounded by the sheer volume of nonsense you can come up with. You sure love to ascribe a lot of phenomena to ambient radiation, huh? You appear completely oblivious to just how insane your theories are and how blatantly obviously they are wrong. I am also rather sure that no amount of explanation would ever get through to you. You keep on taking over threads and killing them off with your ramblings. I am waiting to see how long it is before you are banned as an indicator of the efficiency of this forum.
    For somebody with a bag full of exacting science. You seem to dispute me with words like "blatantly obvious", "volume of nonsense", "ramblings", and then try to pull any weight you carry to get me banned.

    And you like science?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.

    Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.
    Why do "simultaneous", for lack of a better term, light rays have to reach the focal point at the same time?
    Yes, they do. Because if they do not. You would see in motion, the same object, doing two different things, in different portions of a very large lens. And you will not.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Electromagnetic energy is set by the source. There is certainly a velocity involved. An oscilloscope will record a time difference in high and low voltage sources connected to a common terminal. Meaning that the higher voltage not only gets there but gets there more quickly.

    Both sources of power, start at the exact moment. However the high voltage source, delivers more pressure further in the same amount of time.
    Or in the same length wire, it will deliver more pressure in the same amount of time.
    Most electronics are blind to this. And just pump out a frequency. That will be deciphered properly when it gets there and the equipment syncs with the communication.
    Voltage is not a source of electromagnetic waves. Voltage (i.e. EMF – electromotive force) is a source of electrical current. Electric currents are not EM waves. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Violet delivers the same energy as red in a much shorter time period. The reason is that Violet allows a lot of power to dissipate in the object vibrating at such a high frequency, nearing that of darkness.
    No, no, no! Violet has more energy than red because violet has a higher frequency. Energy is proportional to frequency. (Indeed, the constant of proportionality is the Planck constant if you mesure energy in joules and frequency in hertz.)

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Jane did you know that women tend to speak at a higher frequency then men? And that higher frequency communication is often ignored or not heard? By actual experimentation. Good thing you type like a man. Ha-ha.
    It’s not really a woman having a higher voice but rather a man having a deeper voice. That’s because when a man reaches puberty, the appearance of testosterone causes his vocal cords to elongate, resulting in a deeper voice. You can do your own experimentation with strings to convince yourself of this. A long vibrating string fixed at both ends will generate standing waves of longer wavelengths than the corresponding standing waves of a shorter string vibrating in a similar manner. And longer wavelength = lower frequency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You would see in motion, the same object, doing two different things, in different portions of a very large lens.
    This assumes that the distortion is perceptible, but isn't it possible that the distortion is so small that this is not the case? And I'd say it's fairly obvious that this is the case for any lens or mirror that we use, but that's not even necessary for my argument. All that matters is that you haven't precluded this possibility.

    Stop and think for a second, William. Assuming you're right, what sort of mechanism would cause a light ray that has to travel a longer distance to speed up to catch its buddy? You've already explained your theories on lenses and how they somehow accelerate or deccelerate light, so let's assuming we're dealing with a mirror. Why would two light rays hitting the same mirror, albeit at different angles, rebound at different velocities? Just so you can see a pretty picture?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: The sky 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Evie

    Whilst William McCormick has 'interesting' ideas, they're not scienitific mainstream (and not, according to most here, even coherent). So if you're looking for good answers with which to explain textbook statements, be wary of William's.

    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    I have a few question regarding light and the sky.


    My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?
    Scattering is because of refraction, not absorption (in general). As it happens, in the spectrum visible to humans, the atmosphere behaves in that particular manner - refracting the violet end of the spectrum more than the red end (with a relatively smooth gradient in between).

    I cannot explain the quantum mechanical interactions of permittivity and so on (primarily through not knowing a thing about it myself), but you can understand these issues without recourse to that, by merely thinking of school level refraction and internal reflection experiments: the violet component of white light bends more as it goes through a prism than the red component, whih is why we can use prisms to create a spectrum. (If I'm talking about something you haven't done/don't understand, I apologise. Tell me and I'll start again from even more basic ideas - but for now I'm assuming you understand and have seen how a prism works.)

    Now the scattering comes about because of repeated refraction and some internal reflection of the light as it passes through our atmosphere - all the layers of varying density and the atended water vapour, often in suspended drops of water. Since the blue is affected more strongly, it is what the atmosphere is most able to divert in all directions - the reds and other components being likelier to go in straight lines until they hit something opaque and are absorbed.

    That's basically it, as I understand it - though someone more knowledgeable will no doubt be able to explain it better, or even tell me that I'm entirely wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by EV33
    Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red?
    I always interpret sunsets as simply meaning that from that angle the bluer portions are refracted/scattered so much they do not even get to us, whereas the straighter lines of the red component of sunlight are less bent by the greater thickness of atmosphere between us and the horizon (like looking through a lens sideways inside of from fornt to back) so we get to see them.

    Again, someone more knowledgeable could correct me if I'm badly wrong...
    The point of the prism is the most electron abundant when you shine a light on it. It is going to give you a light that is the most slowed at the point of the prism.
    That is why the other colors are deflected away from the dead slow electron abundant red area. Into the dense accelerating portion of the prism.

    I cannot say whether or not the effect that creates the colors are the actual rays that leave the prism. However if you put another prism in reverse to the first, it does in fact return the band of colors to a white light again.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Electromagnetic energy is set by the source. There is certainly a velocity involved. An oscilloscope will record a time difference in high and low voltage sources connected to a common terminal. Meaning that the higher voltage not only gets there but gets there more quickly.

    Both sources of power, start at the exact moment. However the high voltage source, delivers more pressure further in the same amount of time.
    Or in the same length wire, it will deliver more pressure in the same amount of time.
    Most electronics are blind to this. And just pump out a frequency. That will be deciphered properly when it gets there and the equipment syncs with the communication.
    Voltage is not a source of electromagnetic waves. Voltage (i.e. EMF – electromotive force) is a source of electrical current. Electric currents are not EM waves. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Violet delivers the same energy as red in a much shorter time period. The reason is that Violet allows a lot of power to dissipate in the object vibrating at such a high frequency, nearing that of darkness.
    No, no, no! Violet has more energy than red because violet has a higher frequency. Energy is proportional to frequency. (Indeed, the constant of proportionality is the Planck constant if you mesure energy in joules and frequency in hertz.)

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Jane did you know that women tend to speak at a higher frequency then men? And that higher frequency communication is often ignored or not heard? By actual experimentation. Good thing you type like a man. Ha-ha.
    It’s not really a woman having a higher voice but rather a man having a deeper voice. That’s because when a man reaches puberty, the appearance of testosterone causes his vocal cords to elongate, resulting in a deeper voice. You can do your own experimentation with strings to convince yourself of this. A long vibrating string fixed at both ends will generate standing waves of longer wavelengths than the corresponding standing waves of a shorter string vibrating in a similar manner. And longer wavelength = lower frequency.
    I am saying that electron pressure from high velocity, ambient radiation passing through everything, in every direction simultaneously, is vibrating matter, as it passes through matter, at a very high rate. The atoms shake at a higher frequency, when high speed radiation is passing through the atoms of an object.

    The slower moving ambient radiation that causes red light is banging around, but not actually hitting, in sharp zigzags, at a slower frequency. Creating at the surface of objects hit with it, an abundance of electrons.

    That is why red laser light creates a phosphorescent effect at the surface of objects. Because it creates a traffic jam at the surface of the object, with an abundance of electrons. Even with very low power lasers.

    The reason why you do not even want to look at the point the laser hits is because, as ambient radiation leaves the surface of the area of bombardment. It carries with it the message of a laser beam.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/mrbill/mrbill.html

    This is how I learned light, and lasers, and x-rays and everything else. It works for everything. Nothing left to explain.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

    I have a problem with this though; they claim, and so do many others in their arguments, that different colors of light exist-such as in this article when they say, "Conversely, when one looks towards the sun at sunset, one sees the colors that were not scattered away — the longer wavelength, red light". The problem is, how can there be different color particles of light? A light source such as the sun emits mostly white light, and only white light from our point of view; how can a source emit many different colors of photons? It can't according to most sources, it can only emit one type, white light. So if only one type of particle is emitted, then how can such claims be made as, "One sees the colors that were not scattered away"? This problem also comes through with quantum theory and its attempt to explain why certain colors can be seen coming from objects and not others. QT says that certain photons have the proper frequency to resonate perfectly with the atom, and therefore emit its color frequency, while others do not have a frequency that corresponds and therefore are converted to heat. This also claims the existence of different visible light photons coming from white light. Yes, if you take every color of the spectrum generated by their respectable exited gases, and combine them together in perfect proportions, you get white light. This is how they make white light out to be, the combination of each pure emitter of that frequency. What exactly is white light?
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    Look at the formula for figuring frequency and wave length. It does not need to know how fast the wave or radiation is traveling. It just needs to know, how quickly it can send a transmission and still have the capacitor (receiving antenna), or target aircraft polarize and un- polarize before the next signal.
    The formula relating frequency to wavelength is

    lambda = v_w/f

    Where lambda is the wavelength, v_w is the propagation speed of the wave (How fast it is traveling) and f is the frequency.
    So yes, to find frequency from wavelength or vice versa, you do need to know how fast the wave is traveling
    Regardless of how quickly it is getting there.
    You could base your radar on power of signal as well. The power that is returned would also tell the story of how far off the plane is. In fact if you did not know, you could do this. You might perceive the time it takes to charge a capacitor that records distance, as the time it took the wave to travel. Rather then the amount of power that is reaching the capacitor or receiving antenna.
    Basing a radar set on power of returned signal would be a very bad design. The amount of radar waves reflected by a given object varies due to a number of factors, the material of the object, its shape and the profile it presents to the radar beam. Thus such a radar would be worse than useless. It couldn't tell between a close weakly reflecting target and a further strong reflecting target.

    But that is besides the point. Radars [i] aren't designed that way. They are designed to measure the round trip time of the radar pulse. The point being is that they are designed on a principle that is completely incompatible with your model of light propagation. And they do work as designed. A practical demonstration that you model is wrong.



    I have built radios before. You can build an am radio with one triac, an antenna and a tuner.
    You can also build a radio from a coil, a "cats whisker" crystal detector and a set of head phones. But that is neither here nor there. Building a radio does not mean you understand that actual physic that makes it work.

    As far as the color of the super nova, it is not far enough away to cause a problem with the speed of ambient radiation delivering color to you. That is how fast ambient radiation is. What takes place across the Universe, can be detected here almost instantly. Using certain types of sensing equipment.
    Also at those distances light is not what is being sent. A faster velocity communication is being converted over distance, or slowed to near light speed. When you record it. Your apparatus is just receiving what ever it decides is or was the light from the object you are viewing. Much like night vision glasses.
    Tossed word salad that completely skirts the issue.

    There is only a slight difference in the velocity of different color particles. I mean a very small difference. That is why it goes undetected by all but the best scientists.

    Once a beam is initiated, it does not take anytime to lower or raise the power or color of light. The channel is open. Just like the carrier wave of a radio, opens the gate on a receiving radio, to power the speaker. At that point, different voltage signals contained in the time frame or cycle or frequency, can be heard as different sounds from the speaker.
    Even with an open carrier wave, changes at the transmitter will not be detected at the receiver until they have traversed the distance between them at the speed of light (300,000 km/sec).

    Again, actual real life experience has shown this to be true. Once again reality has exposed you model to be false.

    You can do the same thing with light as well. Use it as a radio wave. I believe it was first done in the eighteen hundreds.


    This is from a book with a copyright of 1878.

    They cannot even detect the rays pushing us to earth yet, Gravity. They are electrons, ambient radiation, electricity.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am saying that electron pressure from high velocity, ambient radiation passing through everything, in every direction simultaneously, is vibrating matter, as it passes through matter, at a very high rate.
    Could you find us a reference for this almighty "ambient radiation" which, seemingly according to you, is the cause of all things? Something other than a picture or video made by you or a claim that you learned this in school (hint: you didn't).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

    I have a problem with this though; they claim, and so do many others in their arguments, that different colors of light exist-such as in this article when they say, "Conversely, when one looks towards the sun at sunset, one sees the colors that were not scattered away — the longer wavelength, red light". The problem is, how can there be different color particles of light? A light source such as the sun emits mostly white light, and only white light from our point of view; how can a source emit many different colors of photons? It can't according to most sources, it can only emit one type, white light. So if only one type of particle is emitted, then how can such claims be made as, "One sees the colors that were not scattered away"? This problem also comes through with quantum theory and its attempt to explain why certain colors can be seen coming from objects and not others. QT says that certain photons have the proper frequency to resonate perfectly with the atom, and therefore emit its color frequency, while others do not have a frequency that corresponds and therefore are converted to heat. This also claims the existence of different visible light photons coming from white light. Yes, if you take every color of the spectrum generated by their respectable exited gases, and combine them together in perfect proportions, you get white light. This is how they make white light out to be, the combination of each pure emitter of that frequency. What exactly is white light?
    There is no such thing as a "white light" particle. White light is just a term that describes how our eyes and brains interpret the mixture of all the different frequency photons emitted by the Sun.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am saying that electron pressure from high velocity, ambient radiation passing through everything, in every direction simultaneously, is vibrating matter, as it passes through matter, at a very high rate.
    Could you find us a reference for this almighty "ambient radiation" which, seemingly according to you, is the cause of all things? Something other than a picture or video made by you or a claim that you learned this in school (hint: you didn't).
    Methinks “ambient radiation” is WM’s fanciful terminology for the discredited concept of the luminiferous aether. (It would also be a rather inaccurate terminology since the ether wasn’t considered to be radiation.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    William McCormick asked which scientist had proved that all EM radiation travels at the same speed. I thought that this was precisely what James Clerk Maxwell's equations proved about 150 years ago?

    Any working physicist here to back up or discredit this claim?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Methinks “ambient radiation” is WM’s fanciful terminology for the discredited concept of the luminiferous aether. (It would also be a rather inaccurate terminology since the ether wasn’t considered to be radiation.)
    I figured something along those lines. I'm hoping that, if William cannot find any reference, then maybe it'll dawn on him that he's made the whole thing up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Methinks “ambient radiation” is WM’s fanciful terminology for the discredited concept of the luminiferous aether. (It would also be a rather inaccurate terminology since the ether wasn’t considered to be radiation.)
    I figured something along those lines. I'm hoping that, if William cannot find any reference, then maybe it'll dawn on him that he's made the whole thing up.
    I would not bet on it. I have given up. It is kinda sad, huh?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    It's a little scary--he works in construction (in Manhattan, no less). How many buildings are patched together with ambient radiation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am saying that electron pressure from high velocity, ambient radiation passing through everything, in every direction simultaneously, is vibrating matter, as it passes through matter, at a very high rate.
    Could you find us a reference for this almighty "ambient radiation" which, seemingly according to you, is the cause of all things? Something other than a picture or video made by you or a claim that you learned this in school (hint: you didn't).
    I learned the ether like the scientists that actually deciphered the elements did. The ether was radiation. The ether was real. And without it, you can only abstract things from reality and give them your own bizarre definition. You will never explain the whole ball of wax. Or have one science that meshes with all branches.

    When I hear young scientists say that there is so much left to discover, it is really funny. Because I know they will never know anything about science, in that frame of mind. I know they cannot understand anything, so of course to them there has to be a whole bunch more science to give them understanding of things.

    I have many references that show at different times that science has believed totally opposite things. Things that are so embarrassing that scientists do not even wish to highlight it.
    Which means that they have not fixed or remedied the continuing problem.

    As George Washington said, "To Rectify Error Is Glory".

    Surly there would be a lot of Glory seekers looking to highlight the exacting repeatable simplified understanding of what took place to showdown the poor science.
    But instead I see a lot of, "Well its just a convention". In a fifth world country if I heard that, I would not drink the water and imagine they have a lot of witch doctors having sex with the tribes people. Using their bizarre rules and science.
    But to hear that in America. Is just impossible. So I am no longer in America or I have a lot of work to do.

    At one time the cathode in a cathode ray tube is shown with the correct (-) symbol, symbolizing a shortage of electrons. At another time it is shown with the (+) symbol that today also symbolizes a shortage of electrons.

    Benjamin Franklin was pretty much right on. He wanted the abundant with electron terminal to be labeled with the (+) symbol. Today it is not.

    I can hurl things with an abundance of electrons. It is pressure. It is potential pressure, when it is held at such a state, by insulators. It is held where it is with insulators, air, plastic, ceramics, by electron pressure, potential energy.

    Inuslators/dielectrics raise in voltage faster then pure silver. In fact silver raises in voltage more slowly then copper. Insulators raise in voltage and create a cone shape, with the point of the cone, farthest from the conductor.
    The cone will be seen to have a decreasing abundance of electrons as you move away from the base of the cone to the point of the cone. It is because the insulator is leaking off into the air, or other substance it is in contact with.
    That is why when you are standing in water you can often feel a little tingle from the insulated extension chord.
    If that chord was to ARC while you are standing in water, and holding it. You might die. Because you are no longer grounded to the earth. You are floating in water, and the water can ARC to 30,000 volts. Leaving you there polarizing back and forth, as quickly as the ARC can change direction.
    You become a plate in a capacitor. The water is the dielectric.

    Many electrical problems in space aboard the mother ship were caused by this misunderstanding.

    One thing that is funny, though. I hear you say "don't you have any other links". Other links, that show other people believe what I am saying?

    And I think wow, this guy is not a scientist. A scientist looks at the information, and decides whether or not he has enough facts, life experience, to prove or disprove it.
    Evidently you don't have enough facts to disprove it yet. And are more interested in there being no evidence to substantiate it.
    That is not science. And if you are not a scientist you will never be a mathematician, or a good musician or anything else. Not even a good cook.

    Science is not a vote. Science is not what a lot of people believe. It has the least to do with what most people believe unfortunately, today. Remember the World was spherical, then it flat, now it is round. We are heading back to a flat world.

    Science is something that is always fun to dispute and fun to bring to more and more exacting standards. As soon as there is one scrap of evidence that a convention was made, and may be wrong. You would halt the idea that further science is taking place on poor incorrect science.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Oooh William

    I like you're picture

    He looks like a cross between Zeus and Hermes

    Shame you can't see his willy very well tho

    But they're not usually shown to be very big in these statues anyway are they?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    A long vibrating string fixed at both ends will generate standing waves of longer wavelengths than the corresponding standing waves of a shorter string vibrating in a similar manner. And longer wavelength = lower frequency.
    I often let a lot of these go. This is often something that is considered true. But, is not based on anything scientific.

    Frequency just means how often something is created, in a period of time.

    Wavelength is a hypothetical estimation of how long it took the first impulse to get there.

    The length of the actual power, sound or transmission may be a fraction of the time between the start and end of the cycle or frequency.

    Wavelength is often just assumed to be the entire time period in the cycle.

    In this animated graphic below, if those lines moving outward from both towers, were the actual power and represented just a billionth of a second pulse. Rather then a longer pulse. Sent out at those frequencies in the graphic. The distance between the pulses would remain the same.

    Yet the theoretical distance between the waves would be that of the frequency and the hypothetical speed of radio waves.

    Lets say God speeded up the Universe. And accelerated (edited, changed) the speed of radio to 600,000,000 meters per second. The graphic below, would still look the same. And the radios would still work the same.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Frequency just means how often something is created, in a period of time.

    Wavelength is a hypothetical estimation of how long it took the first impulse to get there.
    I am using the terms wavelength and frequency in the technical sense. In particular, frequency corresponds to the pitch of sounds: high frequency = high pitch, low frequency = low pitch.

    That is all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am saying that electron pressure from high velocity, ambient radiation passing through everything, in every direction simultaneously, is vibrating matter, as it passes through matter, at a very high rate.
    Could you find us a reference for this almighty "ambient radiation" which, seemingly according to you, is the cause of all things? Something other than a picture or video made by you or a claim that you learned this in school (hint: you didn't).
    Methinks “ambient radiation” is WM’s fanciful terminology for the discredited concept of the luminiferous aether. (It would also be a rather inaccurate terminology since the ether wasn’t considered to be radiation.)
    That is what you heard about the ether. There are twenty different descriptions of the ether. The good scientists did in fact record the proper account of the ether. Along with proper proofs. That were in fact taught here in America.

    In America the term for ether was ambient radiation. It is present and some of it is detected. But is still a mystery to the bulk of the scientific world.

    I am sorry you were not trained in it. I can see how if you were not trained in it, you cannot understand it.

    Well, actually you were trained in it, you just don't believe you are in it.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am sorry you were not trained in it. I can see how if you were not trained in it, you cannot understand it.
    And I am sorry you were not trained in special relativity – otherwise you would have realized how clumsy and redundant the concept of “ambient radiation” (i.e. “ether”) really is. Indeed you don’t seem to be trained in anything at all. I can see how if you were not trained in anything at all, you cannot understand anything at all. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Frequency just means how often something is created, in a period of time.

    Wavelength is a hypothetical estimation of how long it took the first impulse to get there.
    I am using the terms wavelength and frequency in the technical sense. In particular, frequency corresponds to the pitch of sounds: high frequency = high pitch, low frequency = low pitch.

    That is all.
    You are doing what many have done. That has allowed this level of misunderstanding to take place. It is not the technical term. It is the loose term for describing it.

    It would be like saying premium gasoline. It is usually unleaded 92. However someone could be referring to CAM II. That is unleaded 100

    If you use slower evaporating fuel the advanced timing of a racing engine that can easily be 40 degrees before top dead center, can burn the valves and spark plugs right out of an engine.

    Years ago they used tetraethyl methyl lead to increase the evaporation rate of the fuel. This causes more cooling in the engine, allowing more cold air into the cylinder, and more cooler fuel vapor per intake cycle.

    Giving more horse power and better fuel economy. You have to increase the timing, which gives even better fuel economy, because it increases the power per stroke. You also get a more massive temperature differential as you change a cold chamber to a hot chamber.

    When you are talking about basics of science you cannot just use, the loose terms. You have to break it down to what is actually taking place.

    If you look at current communication systems. What takes place is actually a bunch of high frequency, bass communications that recreate a bass like sound. However it is not the same thing.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    One thing that is funny, though. I hear you say "don't you have any other links". Other links, that show other people believe what I am saying?
    William. Stop skirting the issue. You can't distract me. Find some references.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I am sorry you were not trained in it. I can see how if you were not trained in it, you cannot understand it.
    And I am sorry you were not trained in special relativity – otherwise you would have realized how clumsy and redundant the concept of “ambient radiation” (i.e. “ether”) really is. Indeed you don’t seem to be trained in anything at all. I can see how if you were not trained in anything at all, you cannot understand anything at all. :P


    And may I just leave you with "the special bus".

    I would hope that you are not trained with "special relativity"

    Everything in the universe is relative to everything else. Because we live in electricity. Pure electricity. And we are in a mind boggling fast flow of electricity, or better put ambient radiation.

    Einstein could not fathom that, or else he was just to wimpy, not to have stood up to Hitler, and his friends a few bags electric.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Oooh William

    I like you're picture

    He looks like a cross between Zeus and Hermes

    Shame you can't see his willy very well tho

    But they're not usually shown to be very big in these statues anyway are they?
    Your love of science is right up there with LOL!, Ha-ha.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    You are doing what many have done. That has allowed this level of misunderstanding to take place. It is not the technical term. It is the loose term for describing it.
    Man, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Frequency just means how often something is created, in a period of time.

    Wavelength is a hypothetical estimation of how long it took the first impulse to get there.
    I am using the terms wavelength and frequency in the technical sense. In particular, frequency corresponds to the pitch of sounds: high frequency = high pitch, low frequency = low pitch.
    These are technical terms which any scientist would understand. You are the one who doesn’t understand them – you are the one who is using “loose” terms and trying to pollute the forum with your schizophrenic nonsense! :x

    Please can you do everyone here a favour? We don’t need any more of your ramblings about physics – could you just go and haunt the Pseudoscience and Trash Can sections and give us all a break!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    Please can you do everyone here a favour? We don’t need any more of your ramblings about physics – could you just go and haunt the Pseudoscience and Trash Can sections and give us all a break!
    Everyone? I did not know you spoke for everyone. If you can give me an ounce of scientific information, to dispute what I am saying. I will happily be on my way.

    You cannot use those terms you posted for accurately discussing basic science without, other specifications or modifiers. Whether they are called technical, or scientific definitions. Because their definition is actually admitting to incorporating assumptions. They call light, "wave like". That is highly unscientific, if you believe light is created by waves.

    The definition is wrong without other information. Sorry. I don't care who will not believe that, or who does not like that. I am a very real individual, and I do not just sell garbage. Even if it is neatly packaged.

    A radio wave length is based upon the assumption that, the actual transmission is going on during the entire cycle. This is an assumption. The other assumption is how fast the actual transmission is carried in a set period of time. Over the years the speed of light has fluctuated greatly.

    It just depended on which era you were born into. But now because they have adopted this speed once again, it is the speed? Well, I have seen actual tests performed and it shows otherwise.

    And they were done by the guys that did the things we can no longer do.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    That’s it. I’m not wasting any more of my time arguing with someone who can only selfishly brandish his own views and is not interested in listening to other people’s views at all. I am putting William McCormick into my Ignore list along with Hanuka.

    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Sorry. I don't care who will not believe that, or who does not like that. I am a very real individual, and I do not just sell garbage. Even if it is neatly packaged.
    Suit yourself. What you do is none of my business from now on. I’m not reading any more of your garbage. Even if it is neatly packaged.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    I live in Bertrand Russells teapot!
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene
    Oooh William

    I like you're picture

    He looks like a cross between Zeus and Hermes

    Shame you can't see his willy very well tho

    But they're not usually shown to be very big in these statues anyway are they?
    Your love of science is right up there with LOL!, Ha-ha.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick

    I love everything William

    including you

    and especially some of the arguments you've been having with people

    makes me chuckle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    another reason is both air and water are a very translucent blue color when massive amounts of one or the other layer upon your view you can see it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    That’s it. I’m not wasting any more of my time arguing with someone who can only selfishly brandish his own views and is not interested in listening to other people’s views at all. I am putting William McCormick into my Ignore list along with Hanuka.
    Maybe you will never read this. However maybe you can find some humor in this, and realize that, the greats have all come to anger with me. And you may as well put up with me and be great.

    My father who was a very smart fellow, and showed me stuff by the time I was three that most people never get to see at sixty. Worked on the Lunar Module and other projects far more advanced.

    But my constant search for truth and solution, even caused my father to get rather angry with me. In fact he just started to beat me everyday at 3:00 pm when he would get home from work. I would get a minimum of three sometimes eight really good paddles, with a redwood stick with holes in it. He had a second business making and selling redwood furniture. I used to make some of the parts of the redwood furniture, when I was very young. The paddle was the board that fastens the redwood table together from underneath with Parker screws.

    He said that this was for what I had done and he did not catch me doing and for what I would do. Ha-ha. I think I got the better end of the stick.

    Sure some of the bad things I did might still be classified. Some neighbors are probably still trying to figure out how fragment devices blew out their windows and doors, put holes in their boats.
    I created a shock wave that was highly visible on the surface of my canal, and hit neighbors swimming in the canal. And literally a million other things.

    My father had to put up with the bomb squad, the ATF, FBI, Police, from multiple counties, Secret Service, you name it, they have been to one or all the houses I have lived in. I got to know many of them. I am on a first name basis with some of them.

    Here is a little tip. If you are getting hit with a redwood stick, don't cut it up on the band saw. Because your father might get really angry and hit you with a 1/4" brass welding rod. Ha-ha. No joke.
    But believe me I would have stood up for him, if the police came. Not out of fear, but rather out of respect for the guy. He put up with a lot from me. You should too.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Selene


    I love everything William

    including you

    and especially some of the arguments you've been having with people

    makes me chuckle
    Well, I guess I can agree with that kind of thinking. I too, love everyone too.
    As much as I hate to admit that. Because law makers come to mind. I guess I could love them for a few minutes, while I write this post.
    But I love vegetables more, and I kill them. Ha-ha. Maybe one day I can write a post while loving ex-lawmakers that have taken up leadership instead.

    Your thinking is actually a very high order scientific approach to how you should feel about individuals God has ordained to live and breath his air.

    My frustrations are probably some inability I have to communicate the necessary information to the law makers to make them whole and complete individuals capable of scientific decisions.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Some neighbors are probably still trying to figure out how fragment devices blew out their windows and doors, put holes in their boats.
    I created a shock wave that was highly visible on the surface of my canal, and hit neighbors swimming in the canal. And literally a million other things.

    My father had to put up with the bomb squad, the ATF, FBI, Police, from multiple counties, Secret Service, you name it, they have been to one or all the houses I have lived in. I got to know many of them. I am on a first name basis with some of them.
    This isn't funny. This is scary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Some neighbors are probably still trying to figure out how fragment devices blew out their windows and doors, put holes in their boats.
    I created a shock wave that was highly visible on the surface of my canal, and hit neighbors swimming in the canal. And literally a million other things.

    My father had to put up with the bomb squad, the ATF, FBI, Police, from multiple counties, Secret Service, you name it, they have been to one or all the houses I have lived in. I got to know many of them. I am on a first name basis with some of them.
    This isn't funny. This is scary.
    I was four years old.

    I admit later on I made some more errors. But they were more accounted for.

    When my son was two and a half, he was making explosives with me. Probably why I am divorced. Ha-ha.

    But I never hurt anyone. Probably gave everyone around me something to think about. In fact many of them lived a long and prosperous life. After knowing me.

    Even when I was four, I was careful, that no one was around. I checked all the possible angles that the device might fly in. I understood the danger.
    I would definitely tell young kids there is no magic in blowing things up. Things will blow up. They can certainly do it. But they must find a way to do it safely.

    Most kids get hurt because they fail in so many things in life, that they figure their bomb will be uneventful. Or it will not be that powerful. They should know exactly how powerful things are. To avoid any misunderstanding. If something happens it should be their fault.

    Most kids get hurt because they use seemingly innocent devices for kids and create rather nasty devices. That can seriously hurt themselves or others.

    One substance highly overlooked is asphalt. Kids tend to play on it. Kids tend to have caps and other popping devices. Some of these devices can detonate certain types of asphalt. I know, believe me I know. I was merely combining some harmless caps from Grants department store.

    It blew a giant crater in the street and lit up the whole block. I admit some of the fragments did hit a guy I know in the back. He was ok though. But this was one that I had underestimated my fathers warning about.

    If you ever see young kids pounding caps on the street anywhere near asphalt, tell them to stop. Just take my word, and also my fathers warning on this. I only saw small craters formed in cement.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Alc
    Alc is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    Not strictly true, a prism works by bending light, merely because of of the angle it hits the prism, it refracts because the first photons to reach the prism are slowed and forced to change direction... Light in ice can travel at VERY slow speeds, as the refractive index is huge, light travels fastest in a vacuum, but... light will alweays return to its normal speed once out of a specific index, it wont remain at the speed defined by its previous index, it only effects its direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    quote from: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae509.cfm

    The short answer is No. Einstein's theory of special relativity is based on the idea that the speed of light is always constant. However, we CAN make it take longer for light to travel a set distance. In fact, we say that light travels more slowly in optically dense media. That statement is somewhat misleading. We need to look into the physics of the phenomenon.

    When light enters a material, photons are absorbed by the atoms in that material, increasing the energy of the atom. The atom will then lose energy after some tiny fraction of time, emitting a photon in the process. This photon, which is identical to the first, travels at the speed of light until it is absorbed by another atom and the process repeats. The delay between the time that the atom absorbs the photon and the excited atom releases as photon causes it to appear that light is slowing down.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Yes, thanks dejawolf!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    When light enters a material, photons are absorbed by the atoms in that material, increasing the energy of the atom. The atom will then lose energy after some tiny fraction of time, emitting a photon in the process. This photon, which is identical to the first, travels at the speed of light until it is absorbed by another atom and the process repeats. The delay between the time that the atom absorbs the photon and the excited atom releases as photon causes it to appear that light is slowing down.
    This is what, intuitively, I understand, but I still can't figure how the photons 'know' which direction they should be emitted in. Any possible explanation on how that works?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    This is what, intuitively, I understand, but I still can't figure how the photons 'know' which direction they should be emitted in. Any possible explanation on how that works?
    Photons in that picture are waves. They are "emitted" in every direction. But there many new sources (in the medium) for photons, and all these new waves are affected by interference. The positions of the emission centres in the medium and the timing of the interaction of the photons with those different positions determines, in what direction the constructive interference manifests itself. This is the direction of the new photons. It is called diffraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Alc
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
    Not strictly true, a prism works by bending light, merely because of of the angle it hits the prism, it refracts because the first photons to reach the prism are slowed and forced to change direction... Light in ice can travel at VERY slow speeds, as the refractive index is huge, light travels fastest in a vacuum, but... light will alweays return to its normal speed once out of a specific index, it wont remain at the speed defined by its previous index, it only effects its direction.
    I wish I had the exact experiments that showed that light cannot bend. But from my education. Light cannot bend.
    The charged surface areas that ambient radiation collide with create light. It is done with a decrease in velocity as high speed ambient radiation leaves an object, heading right for your eye, is slightly slowed by the objects surface. Giving it the qualities we call light.

    I was taught that light when it strikes an object, even glass, leaves an energy at the surface. The next particles to pass through the surface in either direction are effected.

    When light hits a prism, it tries to go for the thicker part of the prism. Just like light does when it strikes a convex lens.

    Since all the light cannot squeeze down to a tight beam before it hits the lens, and go into the thicker part of the prism.
    It has no choice, but go through the thinner more electron abundant, area of the prism.
    It does have to do with the angle of the prism to the light ray. Because the heavy part of the prism is hit first. It keeps the rest of the beam from turning into the thick part of the prism. Like it would do naturally.

    But I was taught that the light that strikes the prism, just leaves its charge at the surface of the prism. And in fact high speed ambient radiation electrons moving in bizarrely straight paths at bizarrely high speeds. Carry the information to and through the other surface of the prism.

    Just like the glycerin coated dark box, shows no light beam. Without dust particles. Yet conducts powerful light through it.

    The far surface of the prism has a similar effect on ambient radiation leaving the prism. As very straight very fast ambient radiation leaves the surface of the prism, the prisms surface charge adjusts the speed of the light ever so faintly to give you the electrons that will register in your eyes, as color.

    You never really see light, you see electrical charges that your eyes detect as light.

    There are really awesome ways to prove this, that back themselves up to explain all this. At first it seems mind boggling. But after a while, it is really the only possibility.

    If anyone has ever done complicated mitering of complex ornamental molding. Even though it is a simple thing, it can be rather mind boggling until you have done it a couple times.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •