Delta1212 Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 No not diminished, stopped, the light can not escape your window, the negative viscosity of night is greater. As for sounds, the waves are doppler affected, the louder noise forcing the lesser noise waves out of the way by stronger energy viscosity. Do you not know that maths is an invention? an invention to quantify. Maths is and was always made to fit. This can have no maths, this is reality. And now we've strayed into word salad territory. I tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Do you not know that maths is an invention? an invention to quantify. We can debate if mathematics is invented or discovered, but that is another topic. Maths is and was always made to fit. I am not sure about this. It seems you cannot do anything you want in mathematics and still have interesting non-trivial structures. How these relate to nature is another question. Anyway, this I would say is besides the point. This can have no maths, this is reality. Well, in physics we use mathematical models to describe nature. If you "theory" has no mathematics then it is not really physics. You may tell us nice stories but without some mathematical framework no-one will take you too seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 My eyes do not lie, the glass is more reflective at night, I can clearly see my image, what I am saying is what happens. Your eyes lie to you all the time. This is why optical illusions work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 And I would reply by saying science is been arrogant for not listening, I may be wrong, I may be right, but is it not duty has a scientist to try to understand? suppose I am right, do you want to wait 15 years like faraday when today is current? Because you have not presented anything worth listening to. This is not arrogance just a rather sad fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 delta1212 I tried. I liked your analogy delta1212 +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 Is this a serious question? You have to be careful here. Energy is a property of some physical configuration, it does not exist "by itself". It don't know what you mean by "its own medium" nor "its own visocity". (Unless you are think of something like thermal conductivty?) You say energy does not exist by itself, because energy been often of a physical process that creates the energy. However , energy came first, energy created everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) You say energy does not exist by itself, because energy been often of a physical process that creates the energy. However , energy came first, energy created everything. It does not exist by itself as it is really some number (forget units for a moment) that we can associate with a physical configuration. The number is very useful and important, don't get me wrong on that. However, how can energy "exist" in any meaningful way without reference to some system? For example, what about pure linear momentum? If we have pure energy then we should have pure linear momentum, pure angular moment, pure spin, pure electric charge and so on. We don't have such things in mainstream physics as there are properties of physical systems. That is we can calculate these (mod technical difficulties) and compare them with the actual physical system. This is what you should have in mind with your "generalised viscosity". Edited July 22, 2014 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 If light is at a constant, and continuous? Why does night stop it? That has nothing to do with the speed of light. You might have heard of a complex and rare phenomenon called a "shadow". This is where a "solid object" (you can Google that if it is a concept you are not familiar with) blocks the light. Now, the next bit is complicated and not very intuitive but here goes. The Earth is an unusual three dimensional shape called a "sphere" and it "rotates" around its axis. It takes it 24 hours to do this which, by a strange coincidence, is the same length as a day. As the Earth rotates, different parts of the planet are exposed to the Sun causing an effect known as "day". The other side of the planet is in the shadow of the planet. This causes an effect often called "night". I realise this is pretty advanced stuff for you. Normally people don't cover this until they get to primary school. The glass is not more reflective at night. But it is easier to see your image. Here's why: ... Nice explanation. Sadly, you are wasting your time. Is this a serious question? Sadly, it is. Perhaps one of his more intelligent (and intelligible) ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 22, 2014 Author Share Posted July 22, 2014 Sorry all just got visitors arrived, I will return later when my home is quieter, school holidays , children are off. I will leave you with this to ponder over. And answer your questions when I return. A single Photon is released from a light bulb at C. Then another and another and so on, spreading has in the inverse square law as the Photons gain distance from the source, however all these Photons are released, simualtaneously , going all angles and all directions at C. So at distance according to the physics of the process, the light should not dim, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 So at distance according to the physics of the process, the light should not dim, This example shows exactly why light does get fainter with distance. It even predicts the inverse square law. (As you would realise if you could do the basic arithmetic involved.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I have a good IQ and I am been genuine, what I talk about I have learnt from current science and do not see it how current say it is. Unfortunately, Relative, this is pure arrogance. You say you have learned current science, yet are so ignorant of the basics of reflection and ambient light levels that you foolishly think glass reflects better at night. To challenge how science currently thinks about things you need to have an intimate knowledge of what that thinking is. You do not have this. Do you have an honours degree in science?. A Ph.D. in science? A lengthy history of research, with significant research publications? No? Then you really have no right to suggest that "science has it wrong". I lack all but the first of these and would never countenance arguing that the experts are wrong. I am all too aware of my own ignorance. To be otherwise is to be arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 I am not arrogant, it will be science that puts what I say into understandable context. If you are not arrogant, you will admit that science demonstrates that you are wrong. My eyes do not lie, the glass is more reflective at night, I can clearly see my image, what I am saying is what happens. Your eyes are not lying. But you do not understand what they are telling you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 My eyes do not lie, the glass is more reflective at night, I can clearly see my image, what I am saying is what happens. In case you are interested in what is actually going on here, I'll explain. It's fairly simple. A surface like glass reflects a certain fraction of light that's incident upon it. This is well-documented within physics. It's about 4% for glass, at normal incidence (perpendicular). But during the daytime, there's a lot more light coming in from outside, so you don't notice this 4% reflection — it's swamped by the much brighter external light. When that external light is removed, only then can your eye discern the reflection. Your eyes have a pretty large dynamic range for intensity, so they adjust to lower overall light levels. The reflection may seem bright, but it's still only 4%. Perhaps you've noticed that headlights from other cars don't bother you during daytime, but seem awfully bright at night. It's the same phenomenon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Interesting that the world of science does not think that there is more to viscosity. Yes maybe I am altering the definition of viscosity slightly, ... No, you are driving a coach and horses through the definition. You might as well use the word "ferrule" or "bananaishness" in place of viscosity: something like "Cold and hot is two different bananaishnesses. Night and day!, It is day ere, I can clearly see out of my window into the garden. The natural light in my room, has a close bananaishness to the light outside, only a windows difference, been the transparency of the glass, and the glasses minimal bananaishness." And I would reply by saying science is been arrogant for not listening, I may be wrong, I may be right,... Nope, there's no way you can be right about this because you are trying to use a word to mean something other than what it means. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Well when everything stops, like the ionized layers is, because the rock we live on becomes thermodynamically equal to space, I will not say i told you so, because I will be burnt to a crisp or froze. As both require an energy transfer, how would that be possible if everything is thermodynamically equal to space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaojun Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 How can the electromagnetic radiation has a viscosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Share Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) Hello , I will try something very simple for you all to understand, a shadow does not exist, a shadow, dark is the true nature of the universe, there is not night and day, the universe is always in darkness, the light you see is created. Do you not understand that we all live in the dark and your eyes adjusted to see in the dark, by the evolution adjustment to radiation? The universe is in darkness not brightness. How can the electromagnetic radiation has a viscosity. A rainbow....... A rainbow you see the different viscosities of energy levels... Edited July 27, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 A rainbow....... A rainbow you see the different viscosities of energy levels... So you see dispersion as a kind of "viscosity"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Share Posted July 27, 2014 Cognitive- imagine been at a central point inside a clear glass fish tank, the walls constantly expand, your position stays central. size, velocity , distance all becomes relative to the observer, and the observer, for example - replace yourself with a giant who is the size of a planet, distance perceived by the giant is different to the perceived distance by you. The speed of light, etc, is only relative to humans, what you call fast, to the giant would seem slow. I have looked at your science, and the truth is most of it is only relative, and has very little meaning in the universe. So you see dispersion as a kind of "viscosity"? Yes, but dispersion has in , change, example- transparent, anything that is in a transparent space we see, because it is different to the constant. It is the transparency that is the constant in the Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Relative, Why not learn what the right words are? For example, in a rainbow, what distinguishes the colours you see is not viscosity, but wavelength. In the opening post you talk nonsense about viscosity. What actually causes the effects you see is reflection of light from glass. That in turn depends on something called the refractive index. It has, of course, nothing to do with viscosity. In effect what you have said is "everything in the universe has a mother-in-law and I will choose to redefine what that phrase means each time I use it and I don't intend it to mean what everyone else uses it for." How can you imagine that such behaviour will help? So. where you say "I have looked at your science" OK, you looked. Did you understand it all? If not, there's no way you can validly comment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) size, velocity , distance all becomes relative to the observer, and the observer, for example - replace yourself with a giant who is the size of a planet, distance perceived by the giant is different to the perceived distance by you. Okay, but we can agree on a fixed scale to use. In short we can define some ruler and use that. The giant and I will agree on distances we measure as long as we are in the same rest frame. The speed of light, etc, is only relative to humans, what you call fast, to the giant would seem slow. The speed of light is a constant as measured in any inertial frame of reference. Thus, the giant and I will agree on the speed of light once we have defined a length and time scale to employ. We agree to use the same "rulers and clocks". Edited July 27, 2014 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Share Posted July 27, 2014 Relative, Why not learn what the right words are? For example, in a rainbow, what distinguishes the colours you see is not viscosity, but wavelength. In the opening post you talk nonsense about viscosity. What actually causes the effects you see is reflection of light from glass. That in turn depends on something called the refractive index. It has, of course, nothing to do with viscosity. In effect what you have said is "everything in the universe has a mother-in-law and I will choose to redefine what that phrase means each time I use it and I don't intend it to mean what everyone else uses it for." How can you imagine that such behaviour will help? So. where you say "I have looked at your science" OK, you looked. Did you understand it all? If not, there's no way you can validly comment on it. Thank you John, I know how the spectrum works, I know about wavelengths, red is weak etc etc, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 Then you would also know that it has to do fudge all to do with viscosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Share Posted July 27, 2014 Okay, but we can agree on a fixed scale to use. In short we can define some ruler and use that. The giant and I will agree on distances we measure as long as we are in the same rest frame. The speed of light is a constant as measured in any inertial frame of reference. Thus, the giant and I will agree on the speed of light once we have defined a length and time scale to employ. We agree to use the same "rulers and clocks". I will show you that light has no speed, it is not what you think. The constant speed of light is not a constant, light slows down in a medium etc. You will find that C is no more than speed of emittance. The energy from the sun, emr, flows, it is speed of flow. Then you would also know that it has to do fudge all to do with viscosity. Here we go again, why do you all who have been programmed by books come back with, blah blah? everything has a different viscosity of energy compared to transparency, and transparent is the constant state of the universe. You see, a difference in energy viscosity to the transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 I will show you that light has no speed, it is not what you think. The constant speed of light is not a constant, light slows down in a medium etc. You will find that C is no more than speed of emittance. Okay, I should have been more careful. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant as measured in any inertial frame fo reference. You will find that C is no more than speed of emittance. You will need to explain this carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts