Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - spherical

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 07, 2019, 08:00:15 PM »
Sorry, Koronium and Newtonium do not make part of the only scientifically recognizable Periodic Table of Elements. Those hypothetical elements were dismissed in 1939, sorry.  Koronium and Newtonium does not exist, pictures represent just solar corona. Nothing is lighter than Hydrogen, discuss this is the same as assume caws can fly.

Nice pictures of the 2017 eclipse though.  Solar corona is always beautiful, hot plasma and magnetic fields create fantastic humongous unimaginable loops bigger than Earth.

Still waiting for your solid evidences about this heavy dense region between Sun and Jupiter.

===

Koronium , newtonium - a hypothetical chemical element proposed at the turn of the 19th and 20th century, whose presence was explained by the occurrence of one of the emission lines in the spectrum of the solar corona .

According to Fraunhofer's theory created around 1814, a given set of dark lines in the solar spectrum is associated with a specific element. During the solar eclipse on August 7, 1869, Charles Young and William Harkness discovered in the corona spectrum an emission line of low intensity in its green part. Young identified her as an iron lineNo. 1474 on the Kirchoff scale. This, however, raised doubts, as the presence of iron in the corona should be manifested by the occurrence of several hundred spectral lines. The observations of the eclipse from 1898 made it possible to determine that the wavelength of the mysterious line is 5303 Å. In order to explain it, a hypothesis appeared about the existence of an unknown element that complemented the radiation spectrum of the Sun's corona with its radiation - hence the name of the crowns [1] . The first such presumption is attributed to Dmitry Mendeleev about 1902 (the scholar later proposed a different name for the hypothetical element: newtonium ) [2] .

It was not until 1939 that Walter Grotrian and Bengt Edlén showed that the 5303 Å line is a band forbidden by the radiation of strongly ionized iron atoms (Fe 13+ )



22
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: South Pole as the FE center?
« on: June 07, 2019, 07:34:08 PM »
Quote
from: Pete Svarrior on Today at 05:44:04AM
Quote
from: spherical on June 05, 2019, 08:31:11 PM
I wish we could investigate why it needs to be the North Pole on the center of the FE ?
This logic is extremely backwards. You assume that the Earth is round, and that you can therefore arbitrarily redefine its projection onto a flat plane. There is no "need" for the world to be the way it is - it just happens to be.

For "my logic" to be backwards, you seems to imply that exists a "forward logic" in FE world, painted with "because it is".  The FE with North Pole in the center is just a suggestion from a time where South Pole was unknown and belayed by the northern to a dozen uneducated people, some native tribes and a bunch of penguins. Certainties need facts, evidence, not from old books, please.

Care to show some?   

As I was born close to the South Pole, being one of the "dozen non educated and visually impaired", it is logical for me to  ask about evidences demonstrating the North is in the center, but no, I wish for evidences showing why it is impossible for the South to be in the center.  All FE laws can be applied in both cases without exceptions.

Since I was kid I saw South pole rotating stars, constellations, etc, so for me and the penguins, it is much more forward logical to imagine (if much) the FE with the South in the center.   But I wish to learn reasons why it could not be, other than "because it is". 

I think I am luckier than most  people here, since for many years in my adult life, I saw both poles stars, lived on both hemispheres and personally strongly noticed the differences, didn't copy & paste from old books.

May be I will start to consider the map below as the new FE map to calculate distances, areas, etc.


23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 07, 2019, 04:40:27 PM »
Of course we can discuss that Hydrogen with no electron becomes H+ and that is commonly known as simple "proton", not more hydrogen, the chemical element.  But discussing this will derail the main subject of this thread, about Jupiter.  Lets keep focus.

What is the evidence of a dense substance between Sun and Jupiter that change its visible size?
Some people may confuse the word "evidence" with something written in a paper.

I can write "John is the assassin" and deliver the paper to the judge to incriminate John, that is not considered evidence, except if I can disclose where John hide the body or the weapon with his incriminatory fingerprints.  Evidence and proof is when you can duplicate the experiment, replay several times and obtain the same results, or, when the byproduct of the experience is a non contestable situation, non prima-facie.  For example, empty beer bottles inside your car is not evidence that you are driving under influence, but enough evidence to give authority to the officer to conduct a sobriety test.  A letter delivered to the police saying that someone saw empty bottles inside your car, will not dispatch a cruiser to intercept you in the street, not enough evidence, a picture of you drinking while driving, maybe.  When you read something in a paper, old books, etc, it means nothing, except if you can duplicate that with the correct tools.  Paper hold records of said previous experiments, but not evidence at all about the truth of those experiments, and the scientific validity of it.

What scientific experiments one can do at a lab or at kitchen table and obtain results to prove this very dense substance between Sun and Jupiter?

24
What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

Interesting and real, at the beginning of the 20 century, the average understanding of general public was no much more than how to ride a horse and cultivate potatoes.

One thing we know for sure, no great discovery of a single man stay hidden forever, sooner or later somebody else would work on the same idea and blow it up.  History show us examples of that.  The state of world technology open doors for thinkers, more than one person start to think about the same invention, solution, use of the available tools, etc.   Sorry, we don't have flying saucers around, not here anyway.

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 06, 2019, 10:11:38 PM »
Interesting.  You do realize, of course, Hydrogen has only one electron, right? less than that, no energy wave, no element.  You also do realize that spectroscopy identifies Hydrogen as the most abundant element in the visible universe, right?

Mendeleev assumptions predates the concepts of atomic number and electron configuration, so much improvement to be done on those tables.  Here at university we use to say that assumption is the mother or failure, and it really is.

So, are you saying that Mendeleev table is your proof of the very dense region between Sun and Jupiter ?  Is that your base material for this discussion ?

26
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What has the FE theory achieved?
« on: June 06, 2019, 09:56:57 PM »

The flat earth theory has been around for the last 150 years or so, since Samuel Rowbotham. In that time quite a large number of people with different backgrounds have accepted it, for example the city of Zion under Voliva. Some of those people surely were scientists interested in improving people’s lives.

So my question is: what benefits has the flat earth theory brought to people? What important research could not have been achieved while believing in a round earth? Has anything important come out of flat earth research?

What benefits to society come from the flat earth theory?

See, my point of view, 150 years ago we didn't have even airplanes, lots of travel were done by horse or train, scientific tools were primitive and surgeons were killing patients by not washing their hands when moving from a decomposing corpse to a C section.  During this 150 years humanity evolved technology, electric, electronic, aero, aerospacial, sensoring, measuring, computers crunching numbers as never before, optical resolution went sky high, radiation measurement and atom splitting.   The RE world advanced so much, we put thousands of satellites in orbit, robots on Mars!!!, we took pictures at close range from Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto.  We have a spaceship outside the Solar System already, and kicking good. GPS grew along cell phones, we went to the Moon not only once, we build a space station and flew to there many many times, many scientists and non military people lived in such space station, promote tests, discoveries.  We put telescopes in orbit outside the nasty atmosphere!!! In the field of Medicine we evolved very much, we decoded human genome (in theory we can build a human body), we can see blood vessels working without dissecting the body, we created a pacemaker and saved so many lives, we found ways to keep humans alive from the most killing stupid diseases as simple infections.  With little blood we can now say a bunch of your body workings, deviations and setup a medication response for that.  We have many thousands airplanes actually flying and crisscrossing the skies, transporting many thousands of people from one side to another, with the same easiness as taking a morning shower.  We develop car engines super complicated with many sensors to improve emissions and reduce consumption of fossil fuels.  We are in verge of massive electric transportation. We found a way to harness the energy from the Sun other than hydroelectric generators, solar, wind, thermal, ocean waves generating electricity. We harness the energy of atomic radiation on nuclear plants and warm milk with such energy to feed our babies. More than 99% of the residences in North America has air conditioned, hot water, cable TV and Internet.  We found ways for everybody to survive the harsh of very cool winter and the Florida/Arizona heat of summer, very comfortable with housing construction technology. The last 150 years probably represent more development and advances than the previous many thousand years of human evolution.

But during this 150 years, FE still not even defined the form, size, and altitude of their FE Sun or Moon, still not able to explain eclipses in a mechanical predicted and calculated way.  It didn't evolve because there are no bases to support evolution.

The good side, and I think this answer your question, FE discussions pushed a lot of people, most teens to research more about science, about astronomy, about our own planet and the Solar System.  I guess that a bunch of people used the first opportunity to gaze the Moon through a binoculars or telescope and wonder more about scientific stuff.

In some way, FE theory enforces scientific research to its highest level, when students learn that a fact of science can be duplicated, repeated several times, with the same results, can be calculated, measured, classified, laws formulated, same laws used for other exercises and serving as steps for further development and research.  Anyone even barely involved to the scientific fields, learn how to discriminate real facts from guessing drunken imagination.

To help that, I push students to talk about FE and read about it, weeks later I return to the subject and we freely discuss it.  I can smell that some students went after and learn something scientific during this process, I can say some of them didn't know in details the physical dimensions of the Solar System, Sun, planets.  Lately I heard a student saying he was surprise to find out how far is the orbit of the geostationary satellites.  See, they went after information, rather clearly not interested before.

I am sure, some participants here in this forum also learn something scientific everyday, and that is positive result for common people.

27
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 06, 2019, 09:18:25 PM »
Between Jupiter and the Sun there is a very dense region of aether/ether.

Can you please, care to post further details or evidences about this very dense region?
How do you or someone know that?  How it was measured and verified to sustain such statement?
In case this region is proved to exist, what are the physics that change the angular sizes?  refraction again?
If yes, contrary to what FE Wiki says, light from distance appears bigger, several pictures on wiki sustain it.
If there is no solid bases for such very dense region, then it is just a guessing to justify the numbers, a case when 2+2 = 3 by necessity.
Sandokhan, please, you are affirming statements carrying sure seriously certainty, be prepared to show the test results.
Just for you to know me better and not see me as a keyboard crazy teenager, I am a science teacher and astronomer, optical and radiation engineer at a Florida university.

28
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 06, 2019, 08:38:55 PM »
Based on picture posted by Sandokhan, below, "The effect of astronomical refraction is to make a celestial body appear higher in the sky than it otherwise would"... this text constradicts the explanation why we see the Sun rise and set at the horizon on FE.   It is said that the Sun appears to set because atmospheric refraction, when in real it still 18° high, but the picture below says otherwise, so, should I think that when we see the Sun at the horizon, it is even much more under the horizon?  2+2 can't be 3 when necessary, or 5 if required, it is 4 no matter the angle you see it.  Please review your statement.


29
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 06, 2019, 08:27:07 PM »
If the Sun orbits at some 12 km above the surface of the Earth, then Jupiter must orbit somewhat at a higher altitude, perhaps some 25 km, if not more.

So, one could use that good telescope from Tom Bishop and see children playing with frisbee over Jupiter, right?  He did that over the bay, and it was 48km away.

Just going to numbers, double the distance, half the visual angular size for the same size object.  If the Jupiter has the same size of Sun, and it is only double the distance, we could see Jupiter half the size of the Sun, right Sandoknan?

Numbers again, at some point in Sun's orbit, Jupiter has an angular size of 0°00'49", while the Sun is 0°5', so the real RE angular size of the Sun is 36 times bigger than Jupiter's. RE Jupiter has 1/10 of Sun's diameter.  IF they were the same size, Jupiter should be 36 times further than the Sun.    So, for Jupiter to be actually seen 36 times smaller than the Sun (just grab a telescope and measure), and to be only twice the distance to the Sun, it must be at least 18 times smaller.   So, if the Sun has only 633 meters in diameter (your previous post), than Jupiter should be 35 meters in diameter, that would fit in my back yard... Jupiter moons would be smaller than baseballs.

Resuming, your numbers don't match at all.  Review it. 


30
Flat Earth Theory / Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 05, 2019, 09:40:56 PM »
I found some old threads about Jupiter, but the discussion just bent to teachers, astronomy, etc, not concluding the discussion in a productive way.
My wish here, investigating FE Jupiter, is related to:

1.) Size
2.) Shape
3.) Altitude from FE
4.) Visible rotation
5.) Visible satellites passing in front and back
6.) How the Sun illuminate it and project its satellites shadow over its body
7.) Movement period over FE
8.) Why it changes visible size along the years
9.) Composition based on spectrometry

I wish the discussion stay focused on the subject.


31
Flat Earth Investigations / South Pole as the FE center?
« on: June 05, 2019, 08:31:11 PM »
I wish we could investigate why it needs to be the North Pole on the center of the FE ?

What evidences FErs have for such statement? Who defined that and based on what reason or proven evidence?

Why not the Antarctica in the center, and the Arctic as the ice wall all around? 


32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE
« on: June 05, 2019, 08:08:32 PM »
If you want to claim that the Earth is orbiting the Sun, you must explain the missing orbital Coriolis effect and the missing solar gravitational potential in relation to the GPS satellites.

So, you are saying that if I tie a small rock to a string, rotate it horizontally inside an airplane (centrifugal force) while flying at steady 600km/h West, the centripetal force I feel on my hand would change according to the direction the rock in the rotation East or West?  Would I feel pulling bumps?  Yeah, frame of reference is really confusing for some people.

I posted weeks ago, the car's tire in movement, touching the ground is literally stopped, the upper part is moving forward at twice the speed of the car.  For lots of people this is really confusing, for the car wheel shaft reference it is pretty simple.

Even so, wanting to consider Sun's frame of reference, Earth's gravity acceleration is much more pronounced (1600+) upon everything over the planet, even satellites, than Sun's gravitational pull, 5.9E-3m/s², 0.0006 x Earth's gravitational acceleration.

33
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.
« on: June 05, 2019, 07:28:20 PM »
Macarios, lets remember the Tom Bishop Experiment on Wiki, where he was able to see children playing with frisbee (SB=) 48km away, belly flat on sand, so, no more than (SL=) 0.2m from the ground, using a "good telescope".  As far as I understand, the 1/60 of a degree rule doesn't change if you look with naked eye or through a telescope, right?  0.2/48000 = 0.0000042 = (arcrad) 0.000238° = 0°00'00"86.

34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice Ages on FE
« on: June 05, 2019, 06:21:55 PM »
Are you guys really discussing mass difference of an oblate spheroid with 3980 miles radius and the average ocean dept of only 1.7 mile? 
Even without water, it is only 1/2341 (0.000427)... an orange fruit skin has 26x more irregularities. 45mm radius, 0.5mm dept, 1/90, 2341/90 = 26.   

An average rock (quartz) density goes from 2.0 to 2.6g/cm3, meaning worst case of 2.6 denser than water. It means the 1.7 mile average dept filled with water could be converted to the equivalent of (1.7 * (1-(1/2.6)) = 1.7 * 0.61 = 1.05 mile without water, what squeezes the ratio to 1.05 / 3980 = (1/3804) 0.000263, the orange skin = 42x has more pronounced irregularities.

Gravity acceleration measured by (Nasa Grace and European Goce) satellites results don't follow exactly the land/ocean topography, there are other factors involved, like metals in rocky formation, etc.   

Just the oblate difference from Polar to Equatorial radius give us 14 miles, that is almost 14 times more pronounced than the conversion rock to water in oceans.  It means the oblate kills any discussion about ocean dept and missing rocky mass. This extra mass around equatorial line could even represents why Earth is orbiting the Sun oriented as it is.


35
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Solar Eclipse Umbra and Penumbra sizes
« on: May 29, 2019, 05:54:20 PM »
Yes, you are correct.  The Moon makes like a pivot (fulcrum) in a lever, its shadow moves opposite from the Sun.
But you always need to think as observing this from the Sun's point of view, eliminates a lot of confusion about Sun and Moon movement along to Earth's movement.



Observing from the Sun, you have only the Moon moving eastward, so the shadow will also go eastward.
Earth's rotating or not will only change the shadow position on a physical spot (city) over Earth, along the time, shadow always moves eastward

36
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle and Length of a pole's shadow
« on: May 29, 2019, 05:27:29 PM »
Still waiting the numbers from Tom Bishop.

37
Flat Earth Theory / FE Wiki - Foucault Pendulum
« on: May 28, 2019, 04:03:29 PM »
On the link posted by the Wiki, about Airy's dismissing the Foucault Pendulum actually working, there is a continuation text below (emphasis mine), I think it must be part of the wiki as well.

Powell and Airy attempted to disabuse the public of doubts concerning the Foucault pendulum. On 9 May, Powell, a leading British popularizer of science, gave an address on the Foucault pendulum at a public demonstration of the experiment at the Royal Institution.
Listing the repetitions conducted by scientists in Britain and Europe, he noted that the "accordance of many of the results at different places within fair limits of error"
confirmed the validity of the experiment. Powell cautioned, nevertheless, that the "sources of error are numerous and not easy to be effectually guarded against." He reasoned that "these causes of error" affected "many of the public repetitions" whose results did not conform to theory.
Powell also noted that Airy had confirmed the experiment.
On 9 May, Airy had presented his results to the Royal Astronomical Society. Two months later, Airy observed in an address before the British Association for the Advancement of Science that the Foucault pendulum had "excited very great attention both in France and England" by "visibly proving, if proof were necessary," the earth's rotation.

Although now "certain" that "Foucault's theory is correct," Airy warned that "careful adjustments" were necessary.
"For want of these the experiment has sometimes failed."

Some free oscillation (non powered) pendulum experiments:



Search Youtube for large pendulums on museums and other places over several cities, Paris, Valencia, Houston, Portland, Norway, Chicago, Fermilab, San Francisco, Austin, St Andrews, Franklin's Institute...   It works so well, everybody wants one in theirs tall hall.

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon according to FE Wiki
« on: May 28, 2019, 03:25:01 PM »
If I understand the diagram showing the Moon phases according to FE Wiki, the new Moon should always appear in the sky 'underneath' the Sun. 

This is another great subject to discuss with diagrams and illustrations.

See, there are two FE ideas about Moon phases, one use a gigantic 30km in diameter obscure anti-moon object that nobody saw, the second is very similar to the real thing, the Sun illuminating the Moon but we see in angle and only part of it illuminated.  This second also eliminate the idea about the Moon has own light, being transparent, being a disc, etc.

The problem with the underlined above, is the FE distance of Sun/Moon and the observer, it is too short, less than 6000km.  Suppose the Sun/Moon position is at longitude X, and two observers, one 5 hours to East, another 5 hours to West, each would see a complete different illuminated Moon covering.  One would be more illuminated area, the other will see less illuminated area.  The distance from Sun to Moon will not change the different view much.  This only works well if the Sun/Moon would be very far away, so the angular position of the observer on Earth will be visible and angular insignificant to notice any difference.

This simple observation can be done by several people at some specific time all over the world where they can see the non full moon.   The Moon on the pictures could be measured; diameter and illuminated area/angle.  If there any difference as viewed from different places over the Earth, then the observes's angles could be calculated and confirming the Sun/Moon altitude over the FE.

The only way for FErs to have the same illuminated area view from different and far places, is for the Moon not to be spherical, but a flat disc facing down, parallel to Earth, but them, other large problems would arise, as; how people don't see the Moon as an elipse from an angle, and worse; how part of the Moon is not illuminated by the Sun on its phases, again, having its own light? obscure object blocking part of the disc view?

The RE heliocentric system is so easy, fool proof and works always. 


39
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Solar Eclipse Umbra and Penumbra sizes
« on: May 28, 2019, 02:13:42 PM »
That's a really interesting topic, also because eclipses are so fascinating.


Considering (B) ..., The killing factor here is that on this situation the only way to have Penumbra is when the same size Sun is far away from the Moon, it can be calculated, measured, simulated on any optical lab or kitchen table.   Grab your flashlight, put it face down over a paper, using the flashlight face draw a circle with a pencil, cut this disc of paper (lets call it "blocker"), now projects the flashlight light beam 90° against the wall and use the blocker to block the light, change distances Flashlight-Wall, Flashlight-Blocker and see what happens.  No matter the distance from the wall, the blocker shadow diameter will be almost constant.   Now cut another blocker half the diameter of the first one and repeat the experience, you will notice the conical shadow projected on the wall, if the flashlight and the smaller blocker is away from the wall, there will be no casting shadow visible defined, as (A).   With the blocker same size of flashlight, the Umbra never changes size, and it changes in real life, this option (B) is eliminated.

Here I'm wondering if FEs would trust the 120kms measure. However, from another thread here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14812.0), it's apparent they acknowledge that the eclipse shadow movement paradoxically goes from East to West. I sketched a diagram for your B case, and in FE you must have the Moon and the Sun quite close to each other in order to get that paradox. Conversely, if the Moon and the Sun are equally sized, but far from each other, you'd get a shadow going from West to East. Can you comment on that? 

Secondly, is it me or the East to West paradox would also cause a very elliptical penumbra? (Always in this B case) Much more elliptical than what happens in reality?


As basic mechanics and optics, if the Sun moves East-->West faster than the Moon below, the projected shadow would always moves the opposite direction, no matter what, West-->East, this works like a lever with the Moon as the pivot, top goes to one direction, bottom goes to another.   About the sizes of the Umbra, that is a physical measurement anyone can do, just set a bunch of friends all over a place where the next total Solar eclipse will happen, to report where they physical are (lat/long) and a picture at some specific exact time, based on that it will be very easy to state what is the diameter (or area) where the total eclipse (umbra) can be seem at the same time. The 120km was not only scientific calculated, but witnessed, registered and verified many times.

Beliefs walks when Facts talks.

In my life I've seen many people saying "I don't believe on this".  See, belief is for spiritual and religion, for science there are tests, measurement, repetition, proof.
Some people say "I don't believe men went to the Moon", I always answer, "why would you need to believe?", do you (general population) ever personally saw an emperor penguin? a white polar bear? an Australian dingo? a golden monkey from Amazon? a Zebra? a coral snake? an Indian Elephant? black scorpion? do you ever went to Venice? Louvre museum? Fuji mountain? Iceland? Rio?, traveled by Concord? jump by parachute? based on your own mind, do you believe they exist or you do know they exist? what makes such difference in your mind?  Do you ever saw and touched your own heart? do you know you have one or you do believe on it?   There are so many things in the world that we know for a fact (or not) without only believing.   Did you ever punched a policeman in the face? do you believe he would react and arrest you, or you know that for sure? 

Do you ever put your hand over the fire to burn it to a unbelievable pain? do you believe it will burn or you do know that for sure?  How do you know that, if you never did it before?  There is a close relationship between belief and faith.  I don't have faith or belief in science, I don't need to, I don't need to count 2+2 to confirm the 4, I know it.

40
Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Wiki - Optics
« on: May 26, 2019, 11:49:45 PM »
I can make anything in any transparent medium look larger or smaller, deformed, twisted, bent, inverted, etc, viewed by another transparent medium.
It all depends on the shape of the border between both or all mediums, and the angle of incidence of the photons.

The lack of scientific knowledge about optics in general population, indeed not difficult, leads most of the population to create and believe in popular belief, not exactly facts.  The popular belief is based mostly on "what you see is what you get", this kind of reason lead to several magic tricks, where optical illusion is used plenty.

Optics is a scientific field most unknown and "distorted" in the popular knowledge, even being really easy to grasp and understand.
I believe the great responsible for that is how little it is explored in school, at home and at 99% of the regular jobs.

Several online training optical labs and exercises help to start to understand how things really works:

https://www.newpathonline.com/free-curriculum-resources/virtual_lab/Mirrors_and_Lenses/10/8,9,10,11,12,13,14/1911
https://ricktu288.github.io/ray-optics/simulator/

Very good:
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/bending-light/latest/bending-light_en.html

A pack of simulations:
https://ophysics.com/l.html

This is a very numeric and adjustable, for advanced optics students:
https://arachnoid.com/OpticalRayTracer/

A very simple optics test to find out how much you know:
https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=light-practice-test--

This is very good to start to understand optical concepts:
https://www.miniphysics.com/ss-ray-diagrams-for-converging-lens.html

One of the first "wow" about understanding light, image refraction and reflection, is when you compare light with radio frequencies.  On the old AM radio you tune one station and you have a voice, sound, song, etc, it is almost complete, whole, you can be listening to it for hours without losing any bit of information, considering the reception is good and your own language.  On light image, it is like tuning to a thousand different frequency radio stations at the same time, each one transmitting a part of that image, if you see (hear) just one transmission it will be very difficult to grasp about the total final image.  It will be like seen a monkey just observing the violet band of light its body reflects, you will not understand it.  You need more frequencies, more stations, only by seen (hearing) several stations at the same time you will start to grasp the final image.

A simple example of few "radio stations" carrying different part of the final image, based on CMYK filters:


This is why optics field become very important in the late 20th century, when the industry and scientific development realize they could understand better the composition of matter by just tuning few selected of those "radio stations", and observing certain frequencies of light instead of everything at once. Chromatography became popular in the scientific area.  You can burn a piece of anything and observe the gases resulting on the flame and identify almost 100% its chemical composition. You can analyse all signals "transmitted by those hundreds of radios" from the light reflected by a planet and identify most of the gases on its atmosphere.

There are much more under this rug than discussing about a straw inside a cup with water, or the light bent over the ocean moisture denser medium, and the first impression you have, without understanding it deeply.   

And that, it is just studying plain fixed density and optical refraction index of materials, like water, glass, crystals, etc, but now there are materials with gradient index of refraction, creating a total new field of study and work, light can bend in a variable way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient-index_optics

Think about this:  You go to a brain neurosurgeon and explain to him about a certain recent headache.  You try to tell him what you think it is, about the skull bone, nerves, veins and arteries, muscles and try to make your medical knowledge become important to him.  The surgeon will keep listening to you, will make a magnetic resonance imagine recording and evaluation, then will prescribe a single aspirin to help dissolve a tinny cloth you have in a non important artery. As a matter of fact, the cloth dissolves by itself and you never had the headache anymore.  Obviously you think your knowledge and talk helped a lot the doctor decision, without your info he would not be able to find and fix your problem.  Do you really think your very superficial and popular distorted knowledge of the human anatomy and works will dramatically change the 30 years of experience and hundreds of surgeries, thousands of analyzed MRIs of such doctor and his team?
 

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  Next >