The conference hall debate!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by theorist-constant12345, Feb 20, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,513
    Not true. Propagation through air causes Rayleigh scattering (which is why the Sun is yellow at mid-day, and why the sky is blue.) It also causes refraction; you see sunrise about 2 minutes before the sun actually rises due to refraction in the atmosphere.

    Did you give up on your car analogy? That's unfortunate; it was amusing to see you try to explain how cars are crushed by dense air.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru No more Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,935
    Unfortunately that also means you are much harder to educate... as you are showing here.

    A man who cannot reason is a fool, a man who will not reason is a bigot, and a man who dare not reason is a slave.
    ~ ~ ~ William Drummond

    The feeble tremble before opinion, the foolish defy it, the wise judge it, the skillful direct it.
    ~ ~ ~ Jeanne-Marie Roland
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    My picture was of two cars and not dense air.

    Red sky at night angular displacement of the sun releasing the pressure of blue, red sky in morning the same, no scattering, just force and pressure.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660

    And a man who dare not reason the reasons is a slave to disciplined belief...
     
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    Stop trolling! I do not believe you are actually as stupid as you pretend.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  9. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    If he was, he'd need machines to do his breathing for him.
     
    origin likes this.
  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    LOL.
     
  11. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    There is no scattering , the light is not in some farmers field, it has a process it follows which is not a scattering.
     
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    Sorry I still am not buying your utterly clueless act. Hint: If you take the most absurd postions and refuse to accept any logic, it will become obvious that you are just trolling.
     
  13. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    If you had called the Rayleigh scatter a propagation splatter, then I would agree,it is not scattering that suggests like raining photons scattered.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,513
    Caused by reflections from clouds, dust and moisture in the atmosphere - as well as scattering.
    Scattering is a fact. You can demonstrate it in a laboratory. Shine a powerful green laser through perfectly clear air; you will see scattering.
     
  15. Kittamaru No more Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,935
    Yeah... we're done here... I would say this thread is going in circles, but even that would imply SOME sort of forward momentum...

    TC - what you have demonstrated here is that you are either unwilling, or unable, to learn and accept basic, proven scientific fact.
     
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    We now know that you spend no time at all contemplating your responses to posts. Only eight minutes passed between the time I wrote the above post and added the second and last paragraphs.

    ---

    I have restored the original context of my remark (now in bold) because people who read well will have no problem with a non-technical argument:
    What is incorrect? Be specific. Your vague claim of "incorrect" rests on nothing and suggests that you are not intellectually engaged. If you denying that "none of the isolated pure components are white" then you must have an example of a pure component of white light which is also white. This you did not give, so this interpretation fails to render you as intellectually honest. The natural alternative is that you deny "all white light is a mixture of various pure components" but you give no counter-example or reason to suspect one exists, so this interpretation also fails to render you as intellectually honest. A third alternative is that you object to "Generic phenomena X with property Y may be always partitioned into Z₁, Z₂, Z₃, ..., none of which has property Y, and which cannot be further partitioned. However assembling some or all of Z₁, Z₂, Z₃, ... one may synthesize arbitrary phenomena X' which has property Y. Therefore there is no part of phenomena X which both has property Y and cannot be further partitioned." as a syllogism, but you do not argue against it or offer a counter example. Therefore we must reluctantly conclude you are not both intellectually engaged and being intellectually honest in your claims.

    You admit my pure components are indeed components of white light and pure, so I don't see the objection that the white light doesn't spontaneous decompose into pure spectral hues. After all, water doesn't spontaneously decompose into hydrogen and oxygen under prevailing terrestrial conditions.

    The prism experiments by Newton suggest that every frequency of light has an associated speed of travel in glass -- i.e. the index of refraction of glass is frequency-dependent, a phenomenon called dispersion. It is this property of each frequency of light that causes prisms to allow white light to self-separate into pure components. Likewise, for a diffraction grating in the Maxwellian or QED view, the wavelength of light in air is the sole factor in rendering certain geometries permissible and others not, so again the light self-separates. You provide no evidence against those descriptions or evidence in favor of your own view, so you haven't made your point.


    Not English. Not relevant to any observable phenomenon. Not relevant to this conversation.



    That is an analogy and not correct. But if you did add different paints to a river (an act which almost certainly runs afoul of local environmental laws) the paint particle could be extracted via mechanical separation of the water downstream. (Actual paint consists of finely ground insoluble particles of pigmented material, so no chemistry is needed to do the partition.)

    The prism isn't magic -- it exploits a physical phenomena called optical aberration which made Galileo-style telescope images distorted. Even with perfected shaped lenses, the material of the lens has different index of refraction for 800-nm and 400-nm light the end result being you couldn't get both to a sharp focus simultaneously. The prism is just a degenerate case of a lens in that respect allowing one to investigate the dispersion (defined above) responsible for the optical aberration rather than the trivial of focusing various images
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,621
    theorist-constant12345:

    Your formula is worthless nonsense. Please don't ever post any mathematics here again, unless you can show how you derived it.

    You're not fooling anybody with these troll tactics, and I will happily warn you every time you pull this kind of stunt from now on.
     
    rpenner, Kittamaru and Kristoffer like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page