Dalo

The 'gaps" as explained by Land in his patent are certainly large enough to let light through.

Concerning the argument of a long pole and a small door: the argument in itself is I think wrong because it already assumes that only poles of a certain orientation are available to go through the small opening. This argument is a very good image to explain how only certain rays/waves pass through, but not why only such rays/waves are available. Concerning my mental model of a gap. I admit that I find it impossible to imagine a polarizer without gaps, and therefore very difficult to imagine how light could not go through those gaps. The comparison with gratings is apparently still present, not only in my mind, but also in that of others in this discussion. To make the dialog as productive as possible, allow me the following remarks. 1) I do not deny what my own eyes can see, the fact that when rotating a polarizer different effects are observed. In this regard the video's about the Malus experiment are very instructive. 2) I would very much appreciate an explanation of the material differences between a polarizer and a grating. For instance, in the videos mentioned, a polarizer is used with variable angles of polarization. It seems to me that such a polarizer will resemble more a grating than it does a Polaroid sheet with its permanent patterns. 3) Related to (2), how am I to understand the gaps in a polarizer? 4) I find it easier to think in terms of particles than waves, and I would appreciate it if an explication of polarization were given in those terms. Feel free to use as much math as you want for others, but please remember I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist, so I will need also verbal explanations and not only formulas.

I think you have explained very clearly the electrical effects that take place when vertical rays meet the chains. I have no trouble with this explanation and I will assume that it is correct. What it does not explain is the general effect it is supposed to have on all rays of the same direction, and even those which, I have to repeat myself, could easily slip through the gaps. What makes it impossible for those rays to go through? Also, this explanation only takes care of one aspect of the dual nature of light. It is only valid for light as a wave. I think it would be very difficult to apply it to light as a particle. Unless, somehow, the gaps would only let electrons through with a certain polarization, if that is even a property that can be applied to electrons. I would say that when light is viewed as a particle gaps have no way of differentiating between horizontal or vertical waves. I look forward to your reply.

No, you just make it too simple. If I remember correctly you are one of the people who think that we see an object because its reflection, the rays emanating from it, enter our eyes. And still we see all those parallel rays.

I have been given a puzzle: the arrays or chains absorb all rays that have the same orientation, even those that we would expect could go right through the gaps. I do not understand how that is possible.

your childish tantrums are really tiresome.

Could you maybe pinpoint the time at which he does that? It is a long video indeed

I am afraid it is your interpretation of universality that "doesn't wash". Reality, as you very well know, can be very complex. We might think that our explanations cover all bases, until we come up against an exception that compels us to review the most fundamental principles of our theory. As it was the case with Relativity and and Quantum Theory. The example you give concerns short distances. It becomes more problematic when we consider, for instance, the sun and earth. I had posed the same question in my first thread (which was blocked), concerning the light coming from the sun and how begged the following question: "You conveniently forget what the central issue is: if the sun rays reach the earth in a parallel way, only a very negligible fraction will reach our eyes, wherever we stand. And still, we see the sun in its totality." @StringJunky said that the rays diverge before and after they enter the atmosphere. I find that "before" still mysterious (unless we take into consideration Einstein's view that rays can be bent through gravity), since it would also only concern a small portion of all sun rays.

I admit that I do not equate a grating to a prism, nor do I think that what is considered as valid on earth should automatically be applied to other stars and planets. I believe, just like you do, that the laws of physics are universal, so, in this spirit I should accept all that Physics teaches us as being simply applicable to Mars. But then, we would be forgetting that we are not talking about the physical laws themselves, but our interpretation of them. We are talking about our physical theories, and they cannot claim the same universality as the laws themselves. Indeed. Maybe you should think of it as the first case of relativity Einstein should have dealt with.

Thank you, I really appreciate the gesture. I find the intensity of the discussion sometimes quite puzzling. The emotions run very high on scientific subjects which should be approached calmly and coldly. After all, even if I am a complete crackpot, it is not like I could put Science in danger by my views. The second quote makes more sense, even though I would very much like a non-technical explanation of it (I am sure the mathematical arguments will be in order). I admit that I sometimes made this same mistake. It is tempting to think of the chains as mechanical obstacles to vertical (or horizontal) rays. I suppose it is what comes first to mind in such situations. The reality seems to be much more complex: when in a vertical (or horizontal) position the chains absorb all vertical (or horizontal) rays., even those which could pass through the gaps. I will ask of you the same question I asked @swansont.

nope. I have nothing more to say. edit: gee! How strange! I wonder who voted me down?

I think you are barking at the wrong tree. I have no problem admitting that my "experiment'" in no way respects the canons of scientificity. It was not made under controlled conditions and no measuring instruments were used. I t is more akin to casual observations than anything else. The results I obtained in this non-scientific way resemble very much those obtained by Bragg in his short film. I was able to walk around the water tank, and no, I could not see the beam from above when it was not reflected by the (hand held) mirror. At least not from the same position as shown By Bragg. In this sense, there was no difference between what he showed and I saw. There was a difference though, and that is I think the reason why I was not entirely clear: even when the beam was not reflected on the mirror, and even when I could not see it from above from the same position, I could see it from the end of the path of the beam. That is from the position opposite to where the lamp was. My impression was that the beam did not go as far as when it was visible from above, but since I did not measure it, I will not claim that is the case. I will therefore stick to Bragg's observation that the beam either was reflected on the mirror without being visible from the side, or vice versa. That is also all I have assumed in all this discussion. So, if you want to be pedantic and accuse me of presenting a non-scientific experiment, then I will gladly plead guilty. Now stop beating about the bush and say what you have to say.

Nobody?

Which is, allegedly, something that has to do with our vision. The idea that objects effectively, "objectively", become smaller or larger with distance is certainly metaphysically interesting.

funny that you should ask.

This assumption seems the only possibility for the laws of Optics to be correct. It does imply a non-conventional concept of space.

what about the first question?

Yes it is. I find your reply fascinating. 1) It seems to imply that the sun, because of its distance from the earth, becomes actually smaller. Is that what you are saying? 2) Are the incident rays diverging before or after they enter the atmosphere?

You should really see a therapist. You don't seem to be able to control yourself.

I was not aware of any relevant experiments I refused to consider. Could you be more specific?

that seems to reinforce the idea that the spectrum on Mars would look different than on Earth. But I suppose that you think that this wouldn't prove anything new?

Allow me to refer you to the discussion that followed.

Of course, but I do not think that my doubts are extreme. They would be if prisms on Mars gave the same spectrum as on earth, and I would use the argument that it has not been tested on all stars or planets. Mars and Earth and different enough to make additional proofs superfluous.

If prisms behave the same way on Mars as they do on Earth, that would be a very strong indication that sunlight, wherever it is captured, is composed of the spectrum as we see it through a prism on Earth. That would be another confirmation of the Newtonian assumption that the colors he saw did not come from the prism itself and/or the air particles in his room. That is a central assumption in Physics, just like the idea of universal gravity which is simply a theory and which got an extra empirical confirmation on the Moon by Armstrong. Therefore, either nothing will change for the theory of light, or, if prisms on Mars give another spectrum, a new theory will have to be devised. You may think that we already know the answer and I cannot blame your conviction, but that is still not a proof.