Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. Refraction is not a form of scattering. As you keep claiming this, it is about time you provided some evidence to support it. You know, something informal like the Wikipedia page on refraction explaining that it is caused by scattering, or the the Wikipedia page on scattering saying that it results in refraction. Except that neither page says that, does it? Can you guess why that might be? But maybe those pages are below the usual high standard of science pages on Wikipedia. Perhaps you would prefer to refer to a text book or some published papers that explain refraction as being a result of scattering? No? Nothing? I wonder why?
  2. It is defined in a theory called "General Relativity". It has been around for over 100 years. I am surprised you haven't heard of it. No one is denying that. You are told that every time you ask. Why do you keep asking the same stupid question? Do you genuinely not understand anything that is said to you? If there was any support for this, it would have made headline news. You know, like the time they thought neutrinos were faster than light. This would be a huge breakthrough. I don't think I would have missed it. (Are you really going through the thread and giving negative votes to everyone who points out your errors?)
  3. I have no idea why you would think that. I don't know much about loop quantum gravity specifically, but there are multiple approaches to quantum gravity and it will be interesting to see which (if any) work out.
  4. It is because of the relative alignment of the electric field in the light wave with the molecules (John did not explicitly state this in this longer explanation but it was mentioned before). So those waves where the electric field oscillations are aligned with the molecules will be blocked, those at right angles will not (or much less so) and those in between will be affected proportional to the cosine of the angle. This is a very good question. The photon description and the wave description must give the same result, even if the mechanism is different. I believe this is related to photon spin and how that interest with the electrons in the molecular bonds but I don't understand the relationship between spin and polarisation (I don't know if spin aligned in a particular way is the same as being polarised in that direction, or if it is more complicated). So I look forward to seeing the answer.
  5. There is a nice description and diagram here: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html
  6. There is a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia which seems to claim that black holes are part of some sort of atheist, liberal conspiracy. Apart from anything else, the curvature of space-time means that, once you cross the event horizon, the singularity is no longer ahead of you, but is in your future. There really is no escape from that!
  7. Citation needed. Citation needed. We don't have a quantum theory of gravity. Because it is not true. I will suggest the mods move this to Speculations (and maybe change title to "Stuff Itoero has made up").
  8. No, I think the brain sends sense rays out through the eyes and these detect the objects in our environment. You know, like bats do with sonar. That is why we can find our way around even when there is no light.
  9. Yes, I agree. I think I was thinking of it in the same way as the OP did originally. Or maybe I was thinking about drawing out all possibilities: so if the first pick is red then ... but if the first pick is blue then ... Obviously this is a much longer route to the final answer but it sometimes helps to see what is going on and why the shortcut works.
  10. The choice available has changed, but the probability of what you pick from those is still purely determined by the number of each colour remaining. So you use the same method for the first sock and the second sock, and multiply them together. Imagine instead, the socks were in a cylinder in pairs. For the first sock, the chance of it being any particular colour is purely determined by the number of different socks. The chance of the second one is no longer determined by the number of socks (it is the same colour as the first one). So you can't use the same method to calculate the probability for the first pick and the second pick. I assume that is what they mean, anyway. Maybe "independent" isn't the best word.
  11. I think there are two events: picking the first sock and picking the second sock. They are independent in that the first has no effect on the second (other than changing the number of socks available). And, this is important because it means you can simply multiply the probabilities to get the answer. If by "only one event" you mean that you can forget about the first sock chosen when it comes to the picking second one, then that is what independent means.
  12. Do you have an alternative explanation for sight? Well, only the ones that enter the eye (where they are focused to form an image). I'm not sure what you think the problem is with that.
  13. They are nearly parallel because of the distance. You get rays from all parts of the surface of the sun, which is why you can see the entire sun. Luckily, you only receive a tiny fraction of them, otherwise you would burst into flames. Complicated, I know ...
  14. But if you were to say which parts of John's explanation were not clear to you, it would perhaps be more helpful than simply asking for the explanation you have just been given.
  15. You ask for "a non-technical explanation of it" even though you are responding to a post where he gave you an excellent non-technical explanation. There's no helping some people.
  16. You didn't until I read all the great replies to your post. Have another one!
  17. This is a science forum. I, and most other people, will give you the answers provided by science. Sometimes that means "we don't know" (although there may be any number possible hypotheses out there). If you don't find "we don't know" (and consequently the possibility of discovering new things) to be acceptable and you prefer to make things up, then maybe science isn't for you.
  18. But apparently that is "fair".
  19. I can't imagine why. The Sun radiates in all directions therefore all the rays are diverging from one another. The light that reaches Earth is very nearly parallel, but still diverging (I'm sure someone worked out the angle for you earlier in the thread, or in another similar thread).
  20. So a billionaire should pay, say, $1,000 per year and so should someone on minimum wage? So one person doesn't even notice the minute tax burden and the other person is forced to starve. Great idea.
  21. A pair of fermions can become a pair of bosons. This conserves the various properties. Yes. That is why I included the link to pair production. The Speculations forum is for people to present their own theories supported by math and evidence. Are you ready to do that?
  22. It shouldn't be a political issue but anti-science types like your president make it one. Is that a euphemistic way of denying that raining CO2 levels due to industrialisation has caused climate change? It is certainly what Trump means by it.
  23. Really? So you don't think there should be laws protecting people from being exploited by people more powerful than them? You don't believe that people who earn more should pay more tax? Is anyone suggesting that? It seems to be a bizarre straw man argument. And the best way to ensure that the birth rate keeps falling is to ensure good standards of education, health care and good government in the countries with high birth rates. But presumably you object to spending money on that. You would prefer to keep your money and let the world population grow unconstrained? I cannot legislate your morality. But you will excuse me if I judge you for it.
  24. That seems fair. The richer countries are the ones who have consumed (and wasted) to excess in the past. It is only fair that they should pay extra now. (And I don't believe it is paying for the "excesses" of others; it is helping everyone reach the same level of CO2 reduction).
  25. SR can be shown, by logic, to be self-consistent. Therefore there cannot be a paradox created by the correct application of SR.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.