Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 13:30 On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears.. It > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > squared. > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball.. > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > isn't there. > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century. > This was a critical error in logic! This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure.
From: PD on 25 May 2010 13:36 On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > squared. > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > isn't there. > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. Let's look at your example for a minute. When you step back from the bulb, the bulb gets dimmer too. This is because the fraction of the light emitted from the bulb that is intercepted by the pupil of your eye is diminished, as the square of the radius. The amount of light that is hitting your pupil is also hitting an equivalent sized patch on your hand. But only a fraction of that light is scattered from your hand, and it is scattered again in all directions. So your eyes will only intercept a fraction of the *scattered* light from that patch of your hand. This is why your hand appears dimmer than the bulb. (It's also why the moon appears dimmer than the sun.) No matter how far away you get from the bulb, your hand will never get *completely* dark. However, in order for you to register light from your hand, there are couple of things going on in your eyes that compound the problem. First of all, your eyes need to see a certain number of photons per second in order to register any light at all. That number is not 1. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there is stray light coming in from another source. This is why you can't see stars during the daytime, even though they are there just as they are at night. This is also why your eyes have to get adapted to the dark before you can see anything.
From: PD on 25 May 2010 13:37 On May 25, 12:30 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > > squared. > > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > > isn't there. > > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century. > > This was a critical error in logic! > > This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure. No, I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand the experiment.
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 13:49 On May 25, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:30 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > > > squared. > > > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > > > isn't there. > > > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > > > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > > > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > > > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > > > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > > > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century. > > > This was a critical error in logic! > > > This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure. > > No, I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand the experiment. What experiment? My illustration or Lenards? Ok, let's take Lenard's. Maybe you can figure why this following statement is, what it is. On page 198 of Frank's "Philosophy of Science", it says: Lenard's experiment showed conclusively that the lower limit of the radiation absorbed by the screen, (meaning the photocell) as the distance increases is independent of the distance and dependent only upon the color (frequency) of the light. What does this mean to you PD?
From: PD on 25 May 2010 14:07
On May 25, 12:49 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:30 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 12:26 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > > > > > squared. > > > > > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > > > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > > > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > > > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > > > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > > > > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > > > > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > > > > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > > > > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > > > > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > > > > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > > > > > isn't there. > > > > > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > > > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > > > > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > > > > > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > > > > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > > > > > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > > > > > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > > > > > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > > > > > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > > > > > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > > > > > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > > > > > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > > > > > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > > > > > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong.. The > > > > > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. > > > > > In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see > > > > the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we > > > > substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different > > > > and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in > > > > Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century. > > > > This was a critical error in logic! > > > > This is a critical flaw in experimental procedure. > > > No, I'm sorry, perhaps you don't understand the experiment. > > What experiment? My illustration or Lenards? Ok, let's take > Lenard's. Maybe you can figure why this following statement is, what > it is. On page 198 of Frank's "Philosophy of Science", it says: > > Lenard's experiment showed conclusively that the lower limit of the > radiation absorbed by the screen, (meaning the photocell) as the > distance increases is independent of the distance and dependent only > upon the color (frequency) of the light. > > What does this mean to you PD? It means that light doesn't deliver energy continuously, as in a wave. If it were a wave, then there would be no lower limit based on frequency. In a wave model, the energy is related to the product of intensity and frequency, so that an more intense red light would deliver the same amount of energy as a less intense blue light. What this would mean, for example, is that if the photoelectric effect cut off at a lower frequency, then moving the photocell closer to the source would restore the photoelectric effect, IF the wave model were applicable. This, however, did not happen, as noted in the observations above. Thus, something is wrong with the wave model. However, a photon model accounts for *all* the above observations. This is explained in just about every freshman physics or chemistry textbook you can find in the library. |