EMR questions

[Relative]

 

Errr... kind of. Radio transmissions modulate either the frequency (FM) or the amplitude (AM) of the transmitted "carrier" signal in order to transmit sound.

 

 

Sigh. Not several frequencies from one. White light is a mixture of frequencies. A prism spreads the different frequencies out at different angles.

 

 

Nothing to do with angular momentum.

Yes ok, white light, invisible, a mixture of frequencies, no, white light one frequency, the invisible is constant, the frequencies constantly modify in white light, the whole making one set frequency, it is always constant, you have to modify the constant to see the visible spectrum or send signals.?

[swansont]

 

because emr is a continued physical motion has a wave there is no gaps?

 

 

No. There's really not enough here to get to a correct statement.

Yes ok, white light, invisible, a mixture of frequencies, no, white light one frequency, the invisible is constant, the frequencies constantly modify in white light, the whole making one set frequency, it is always constant, you have to modify the constant to see the visible spectrum or send signals.?

 

Nothing past "mixture of frequencies" is correct. (it falls under the "not even wrong" paradigm)

[Relative]

 

If you will look again, that's not actually what I said. Sight is interacting with EMR ≠ sight interacts with emr

 

If you're going to get anything out of these discussions, you need to do a better job of reading and comprehension.

Yes , I know this, I am not saying it does not interact, I am saying it does not need to reflect into our actual eyes off matter so we see that matter. Because we simply can see through it.

 

 

No. There's really not enough here to get to a correct statement.

 

Nothing past "mixture of frequencies" is correct. (it falls under the "not even wrong" paradigm)

if i had 5 tins of paint all different colours, and I poured them into a tub, however , if the tub was static the colors would stay seperated, and we see the different colours, i spin the tub and keep the tub spinning, the colours merge has one , I see white. I stop the tub , i see the different colours again, I need a constant V to keep spinning my colours, I maintain velocity of the spin, my colour remains a constant, any slowing down of my tub, and i start to see colours again.

[Strange]

 

I am saying it does not need to reflect into our actual eyes off matter so we see that matter.

 

Very obviously, it does.

 

If it doesn't get into your eyes, you can't see it (this is what you have wrongly described as "transparent").

 

And if the object doesn't reflect light, then you won't be able to see it.

because emr is a continued physical motion has a wave there is no gaps?

 

Light does not have to be continuous. Turn your light off: the light stops. Many LEDs are pulsed - you can see this as a flicker when you move your eyes. And, when you get right down to it, light is broken up into photons. So not really continuous at any level.

 

if i had 5 tins of paint all different colours ...

 

This appears to be completely irrelevant. Also, if you mixed paint like this, you would end up with black.

[Relative]

''And if the object doesn't reflect light, then you won't be able to see it.''

 

yes it reflects light, but the light is not reflected into your eyes, it does not have to, you can see the energy difference through the constant state of white light, you see the difference in state?

[Strange]

 

yes it reflects light, but the light is not reflected into your eyes

 

Yes it is. (And, once again, you have veered from asking questions to making irrational speculations.)

 

 

you can see the energy difference through the constant state of white light

 

I'm not sure if that even means anything. But you can't see the change in light unless it enters your eyes. (Because it is "transparent" remember.)

[Relative]

Yes it is. (And, once again, you have veered from asking questions to making irrational speculations.)

 

 

I'm not sure if that even means anything. But you can't see the change in light unless it enters your eyes. (Because it is "transparent" remember.)

 

 

 

Light is EMR, and ok will go back to questions.

 

 

When your eyes are open is emr in continued contact with you retina?

[Strange]

 

When your eyes are open is emr in continued contact with you retina?

 

"Continued contact" doesn't really make sense. It is not like putting your hand in water so it is in "continued contact" with the water. Light does not "contact" your eye. It enters it and disappears.

 

Light enters your eye. It is absorbed by the retina (the light ceases to exist at that point) which generates signals to your brain.

 

If the light source is continuous (e.g the Sun) then you will continuously absorb light. If the light is not continuous (e.e. a pulsed LED or flashing neon sign) then you will not continuously absorb light. But normally, you get a constantly changing input of light from multiple sources.

You still seem to be thinking in terms of some uniform field of "transparent white light" out there.

 

That is not how it works. You can imagine light as waves, particles or even rays. It comes from a sources, bounces off one or more things and, if it enters our eyes, we see those things.

 

As a practical demonstration of how this works, take a look at ray-tracing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing_%28graphics%29

 

The reason that this is able to produce photo-realistic images is because it models the way light works.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

Yes it is. (And, once again, you have veered from asking questions to making irrational speculations.)

 

 

I'm not sure if that even means anything. But you can't see the change in light unless it enters your eyes. (Because it is "transparent" remember.)

You can only see something if light from it goes into your eyes. Either by emission or reflection.

 

 

 

When your eyes are open is emr in continued contact with you retina?

Not necessarily, because of how the eye works. It has a latency time, so your brain will continue to see even if the light is not continuous. Fluorescent lights and LEDs driven by an AC source generally flash on and off, but most people never notice this.

 

if i had 5 tins of paint all different colours, and I poured them into a tub, however , if the tub was static the colors would stay seperated, and we see the different colours, i spin the tub and keep the tub spinning, the colours merge has one , I see white. I stop the tub , i see the different colours again, I need a constant V to keep spinning my colours, I maintain velocity of the spin, my colour remains a constant, any slowing down of my tub, and i start to see colours again.

 

If you're mixing paint there's a whole lot more complication than you're acknowledging here.

[Relative]

Emr even in a low energy state can rotate another body, according to Faraday and the Lorentz force.

 

 

 

 

What effect would a large body of EMR have on a lesser body of Emr?

[ajb]

What effect would a large body of EMR have on a lesser body of Emr?

Photons are not electrically charged, so they will not directly interact. They will have to interact at 'loop level' and not 'tree level'; there is no non-trivial Feynam diagram in QED consisting of just photons in and photons out. However they can interact by production of fermion anti-fermion pairs, but this process is of course energetically suppressed. You have the so called box diagram for photon-photon scattering. Check out the link below.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

[swansont]

Emr even in a low energy state can rotate another body, according to Faraday and the Lorentz force.

 

 

 

We're talking about EMR so the Lorentz force has no applicability. EMR is uncharged. q = 0

 

What effect would a large body of EMR have on a lesser body of Emr?

 

At the level we're discussing, none at all.

[Relative]

 

We're talking about EMR so the Lorentz force has no applicability. EMR is uncharged. q = 0

 

At the level we're discussing, none at all.

You say none at all, I will ask you to reconsider that , and quote you -

''Lastly, the photosphere, the visible surface of the Sun, is where visible sunlight is free to propagate into space(move into space). The energy then washes across the surface or atmosphere of the bodies in the solar system. Here on Earth the atmosphere filters some of the UV rays but passes a portion of that energy. The energy bounces off of the surface and is then reflected back by the atmosphere. After this bounce the Earth absorbs some of the energy and our planet is heated''

 

 

Anything that bounces, is reflected, has force, in a weightless vacuum, how much force would you consider it takes to move an object f=ma, friction is zero,?

 

I consider light is energy, and the energy may have enough force in a weightless vacuum to accelerate matter?

[Fuzzwood]

No-one will be denying that last sentence of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Read the second paragraph and see how influential that force can be.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Fuzzwood

[Relative]

No-one will be denying that last sentence of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Read the second paragraph and see how influential that force can be.

Would you consider that radiation pressure is strong enough to cause friction from an opposing force?

[swansont]

You say none at all, I will ask you to reconsider that , and quote you -

''Lastly, the photosphere, the visible surface of the Sun, is where visible sunlight is free to propagate into space(move into space). The energy then washes across the surface or atmosphere of the bodies in the solar system. Here on Earth the atmosphere filters some of the UV rays but passes a portion of that energy. The energy bounces off of the surface and is then reflected back by the atmosphere. After this bounce the Earth absorbs some of the energy and our planet is heated''

 

 

Anything that bounces, is reflected, has force, in a weightless vacuum, how much force would you consider it takes to move an object f=ma, friction is zero,?

 

I consider light is energy, and the energy may have enough force in a weightless vacuum to accelerate matter?

 

 

It's not the Lorentz force, and EMR interacting with the atmosphere is not EMR interacting with EMR.

 

Do you even read what you post?

 

Also: you say this is a quote. From what post did you supposedly quote me?

[swansont]

Still waiting to find where that quote came from

[Relative]

 

 

It's not the Lorentz force, and EMR interacting with the atmosphere is not EMR interacting with EMR.

 

Do you even read what you post?

 

Also: you say this is a quote. From what post did you supposedly quote me?

Meaning quote to you, not quoting you sorry.

[Sensei]

Emr even in a low energy state can rotate another body, according to Faraday and the Lorentz force.

 

 

 

 

What effect would a large body of EMR have on a lesser body of Emr?

You completely don't understand Lorentz Force equation, do you?

 

E is electric field (Voltage per meter, or N/C). Source are charged particles on f.e. electrodes.

B is magnetic field. Source are magnets or electromagnets.

v is velocity of object.

q is charge of object.

 

If B is 0 (no magnets/electromagnets), it simplifies to

F=q*E

which is the same as Coulomb's law.

[Relative]

You completely don't understand Lorentz Force equation, do you?

 

E is electric field (Voltage per meter, or N/C). Source are charged particles on f.e. electrodes.

B is magnetic field. Source are magnets or electromagnets.

v is velocity of object.

q is charge of object

 

If B is 0 (no magnets/electromagnets), it simplifies to

F=q*E

which is the same as Coulomb's law.

I find the formulas and maths hard because often I see one symbol or representation, that means something else in another field.

E is electric field, but E is also energy?

 

But you are correct, it might has well be in Latin I would have the same understanding, very little, I used it because of the explanation of it rather than the formula,

 

 

It is not that I could not understand it, but have never had it explained.

Vision is the remote sensing of emr?

[Sensei]

I find the formulas and maths hard because often I see one symbol or representation, that means something else in another field.

Because you don't bother analyzing units..

 

E is electric field, but E is also energy?

Yes. In completely different context..

 

It is not that I could not understand it, but have never had it explained.

Haven't you attended primary school.. ?

 

Didn't I told you in different thread to buy physics school books and read them all.. ?

[Relative]

Because you don't bother analyzing units..

 

 

Yes. In completely different context..

 

 

Haven't you attended primary school.. ?

 

Didn't I told you in different thread to buy physics school books and read them all.. ?

They did not teach Lorentz force in primary school. well not in my school for sure.

 

And since primary school a lot of none science information has filled my head, it is true you forget more than you know, but I am sure I never covered Lorentz force etc.

[Sensei]

They did not teach Lorentz force in primary school. well not in my school for sure.

 

And since primary school a lot of none science information has filled my head, it is true you forget more than you know, but I am sure I never covered Lorentz force etc.

Lorentz Force is in our country physics program for kids with 13-14 years.

[Relative]

Lorentz Force is in our country physics program for kids with 13-14 years.

at 13-14 years of age I was playing truant and fixing cars with my dads friend, that was just how it was when I was younger.

EMR interests me, is it true that the human body needs a low percentage of emr for repair cells to remain in tact?

[Strange]

 

Vision is the remote sensing of emr?

 

It is not remote sensing; it is local sensing. Your eyes are in your head and directly connected to your brain. You don't get much more local than that.