Jump to content

how to attain best weakforce and bigbang data


anonymousone

Recommended Posts

 

Which material has uniform refraction index in f.e. frequencies from 1 Hz to Compton Frequency?

 

I assume the constancy refers to over time and displacement rather than over a range of frequencies; ie the experiment will be possible without the need for a vacuum if the medium between source and target has a single index which does not vary for the intended wavelength of the laser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which material has uniform refraction index in f.e. frequencies from 1 Hz to Compton Frequency?

 

Why is that a requirement? We're talking about a laser, with a fixed and relatively narrow frequency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refractive Indexes are measured for specific wavelength/frequency of laser (or light in old times).

Especially in gases it's even worser- there has to be taken into account also temperature and pressure.

On wikipedia RI article there is also mentioned that RI changes with density of glass.

 

For instance we have data

RI=1.33 for f.e. 532 nm,

RI=1.34 for f.e. 650 nm,

RI=1.32 for f.e. 405 nm,

then RI is obviously not constant.

Different value of RI for different light wavelength/frequency.

 

You said "Refraction is only a problem if the index isn't constant,"

And I am asking which material fulfills your RI constancy for lights with as largest range of frequencies as possible (preferably not just visible spectrum).. ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And I am asking which material fulfills your RI constancy for lights with as largest range of frequencies as possible (preferably not just visible spectrum).. ?

 

 

There is no range of frequencies. There is one frequency, that of the laser being used. A laser at 650 nm doesn't care what the 405 nm index is. Just the index at 650 nm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

besides the unproductive arguing[at least up to this point] it seems experiments need to be done on photons which determine whether or not intense beams accross vast distances in outerspace spread out due to hypothetical photon-on-photon interaction. to determine more about the properties of light itself. to continue on with testing current theories on this mysterious form of energy that everybody is familiar with. >:D

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its always funny how throughout history its assumed that whats believed about science is true no matter what until it gets disproved. the closed mindedness is some kind of mentality i dont want to begin to understand. or any type of common sense which is all for average joes. to find true meaning in life is a very diffacult thing to do i think. since most of what gets done on the large scales forgotten also. as if it never happened. just like any other waste of energy.

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

its always funny how throughout history its assumed that whats believed about science is true no matter what until it gets disproved. the closed mindedness is some kind of mentality i dont want to begin to understand. or any type of common sense which is all for average joes. to find true meaning in life is a very diffacult thing to do i think. since most of what gets done on the large scales forgotten also. as if it never happened. just like any other waste of energy.

 

I understand that this is what it looks like from your perspective. But most theories aren't disproved, they're refined and made better. This is the exact opposite of closed-mindedness. That we use theories and evidence instead of looking for proof and Truth supports this closely.

 

You seem to want science to be unattainable for you, you want it to fail to justify your feelings, but you don't seem to want to put the work into it to understand it better. You're in a situation where you really need to understand what you're criticizing, but you're so convinced it's wrong that you won't bother.

 

Everyone here feels frustrated when we come across smart people who insist on hobbling themselves when it comes to learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its always funny how throughout history its assumed that whats believed about science is true no matter what until it gets disproved.

 

It's always funny how people who don't understand science think that.

 

On the other hand, scientists know that their theories are provisional and subject to change. Do you think they haven't noticed that this happens fairly regularly? Or that it is the people who create the paradigm shifting theories who get the big prizes?

 

or any type of common sense which is all for average joes.

 

Common sense is often wrong. Which is why science insists on objectively testable theories.

 

to find true meaning in life is a very diffacult thing to do i think.

 

Yep, science is hard. And doing it well is doubly hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i say that science assumes it knows stuff about the truth i dont mean it assumes it nows all of it. there just seem to be assumptions in some areas not others. in alot of areas its apparent that scientists do have an open mind to new ideas such as the universe and theories on everything. but then when you look at theories on the photon or theories on the atom. theres more of a close minded attitude to those ideas such as what i just encuntered here talking about hypothetical photon on photon interactions...

 

also ide appreciate it if youde not pretend to know where im coming from or how my oppinions are configurated in regards to so many areas of science. or anything in that matter. portraying oneself as assumptive on more levels doesnt exactly accomplish anything meaningful. which is all i really care about. thats the only reason im here. and thats the only reason im going to type anything into this website.

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but then when you look at theories on the photon or theories on the atom. theres more of a close minded attitude to those ideas such as what i just encuntered here talking about hypothetical photon on photon interactions....

 

The only reasons there is any more resistance to new ideas in this area is because the existing theories are incredibly well-tested and supported. It would need extraordinary new evidence to change theories on which so many things rely (including the functioning of almsot every component in your computer). Idle speculation will not convince anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only reasons there is any more resistance to new ideas in this area is because the existing theories are incredibly well-tested and supported. It would need extraordinary new evidence to change theories on which so many things rely (including the functioning of almsot every component in your computer). Idle speculation will not convince anyone.

and this evidence is all relative to the capabilities there are to gather evidence for various theories so it would be more intelligent to begin working on more advanced and bigger ways to test all types of hypothetical particle interactions. such as what i just described. which hasnt been done or proposed until now. and is a very real possible effect. certain experimental results could provide the knowlesge needed to know more for more advanced energy technology. its better to realize how current knowedge is limited by technological limits too. and how technological limits can be overcome with knowledge on how the universe works. which is the incentive for going into outerspace and doing laser experiments whichre reactor powered. my hunger and thirst for this knowledge makes me want to dive through a wall out of frustration i dont have funding to conduct experiments like this now.

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my hunger and thirst for this knowledge makes me want to dive through a wall out of frustration i dont have funding to conduct experiments like this now.

 

My biggest frustration is seeing someone with your potential throw it all away because of your insistence that nobody can teach you anything. You want to dive through the wall out of frustration, but you don't realize you're the one who built the wall.

 

"No teachers will teach me anything useful anyway!" A little more mortar, another brick. Perhaps this "only lead, never follow" philosophy isn't really working out for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just think that the only useful info for me is outside the box. not everybody needs to know what others do. i went to school and there determined what i need to about whats in the box. and it was that all that interests me is new science. new info not taught in schools. its just the way i am. and its to be better at helping myself and others. thats what i care about.

 

pay attention to the potential this experiment has to revolutionize science. or ignore this fact. thats up to you all. not me. i fully realize this now. its simple. im glad its so simple..

 

You have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free.

 

science seeks the truth.

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just think that the only useful info for me is outside the box. not everybody needs to know what others do. i went to school and there determined what i need to about whats in the box. and it was that all that interests me is new science. new info not taught in schools. its just the way i am. and its to be better at helping myself and others. thats what i care about.

Apply your process to any other field.

 

"I'm only interested in NEW engineering designs, I don't want to study what's worked in the past, that's worthless to me."

 

"I don't need to study how to draw, because I'm only interested in NEW art concepts, and I don't need to know how other artists have worked."

 

It's frankly ridiculous. The box is called the box because it's filled with all kinds of great things, accumulated knowledge passed down over centuries. If you study what's in the box, you may eventually get to a point where it's advantageous to think outside it, but you need to know the box first. To think you don't need it is hubris of a very dangerous kind.

 

You have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free.

Who's truth are you talking about, mine or yours or somebody else's?

 

science seeks the truth.

Not really. Truth is too subjective for science. Changes with every person, and there are no absolute universal truths we know about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apply your process to any other field.

 

"I'm only interested in NEW engineering designs, I don't want to study what's worked in the past, that's worthless to me."

 

"I don't need to study how to draw, because I'm only interested in NEW art concepts, and I don't need to know how other artists have worked."

 

It's frankly ridiculous. The box is called the box because it's filled with all kinds of great things, accumulated knowledge passed down over centuries. If you study what's in the box, you may eventually get to a point where it's advantageous to think outside it, but you need to know the box first. To think you don't need it is hubris of a very dangerous kind.

 

Who's truth are you talking about, mine or yours or somebody else's?

 

Not really. Truth is too subjective for science. Changes with every person, and there are no absolute universal truths we know about.

science seeks the truth. because of how valuable this knowledge is for advancing technology and theories about how the universe is(the truth)

thinking outside of the box is an excellent way to accomplish this for creative scientists. because so much more exists there. believe it or not. this is the truth. it doesnt matter if somebody disagrees. because this is still true. its diffacult for somebody whos not creative to understand this. or anything about why its important to be creative. orriginal creativity comes from outside of the box. its more valuable information. thats why its all im interested in. for the most part.

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

science seeks the truth. because of how valuable this knowledge is for advancing technology and theories about how the universe is(the truth)

thinking outside of the box is an excellent way to accomplish this for creative scientists. because so much more exists there. believe it or not. this is the truth. it doesnt matter if somebody disagrees. because this is still true. its diffacult for somebody whos not creative to understand this. or anything about why its important to be creative. orriginal creativity comes from outside of the box. its more valuable information. thats why its all im interested in. for the most part.

 

Well, you have to torture your definition of "truth" to get it to fit science, so it's not a good definition. Theories are NOT truth, they're the best explanations for various phenomena we have to date. One of the strongest aspects of the scientific method is that it never looks for proof or truth, but rather for the preponderance of evidence. In this way, we never stop looking for the best explanations possible. If we told ourselves we've "proven" something, or we've found some kind of "Truth", we'd stop looking for a better answer.

 

It's not just semantics that science doesn't look for Truth. It would make science worthless if we stopped gathering evidence and just assumed something was "true".

 

It took a long time for me to see the myth around the whole "thinking outside the box" garbage. It sounds so great, so intuitively correct, but in reality you're asking yourself to start from square one, assume everything in the box is useless to you even though EVERY BIT OF IT WORKS, and derive what observations you can based on complete ignorance of what you're supposed to be thinking outside the box about. Experts can "think outside the box" ONLY because they understand the box so well. How can you even know you're thinking outside when you don't truly know where the box begins and ends? Do you just assume that if an expert knows something, it must be from the box and therefore worthless to you?

 

I've seen far too many smart young people come through here trashing mainstream science, claiming it's hidebound, close-minded, and incapable of recognizing new ideas. They all seem to have one thing in common: they got pissed off at school and decided science was too much work the way it was presented to them, so they decide they already know enough, they stop reading the texts and start reading crap science because it seems much more intuitive to their creative minds. In most cases, they base their current studies on misinformation, misunderstood and inconsistent definitions, and fallacious logic. All while dancing around outside the box, as if that made any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evidence scientifically proves evolution is the truth. science seeks and proves the truth. this much isnt debatible...and for you to insult everybody who gets bored with science taught in schools as all the same demonstrates your flaws sir. ide suggest you keep your mouth shut about assuming you know anything about creative scientific minded folks. youre just making yourself seem like youre more and more asumptive of others. not exactly the best way to be taken seriously. by the Real genius ones.


science mathematically proves the truth and seeks more of it. nothing you seem to say is correct. youre not worth responding to really. dont keep responding after youve lost the argument. you wont phase me with any banter like that because im not like you.

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my.

Someone is upset because they chose the easy ( but wrong ) way, without doing the foundational work needed for understanding, and got called on it.

 

I'd suggest learning at lest some of what's 'in the box', before making any forays outside.

 

until then, suck it up, buttercup.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you all live in pretend where you say things which dont apply to the truth and believe them because you dont have the capacity to understand or deal with intelligent information. or its all pretend and you do....well i dont put up with bs of any kind when im trying to change the world. i suggest you go get hit by a speeding train and die. instead of doing like that in this argument.

you all cant handle the truth.

you have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free. knowledge is power.


.... asume asume asume. you dont know what my face looks like or what my skin color is. yet you pretend to know my educational levels in regards to all of science(in the box). as if you know what my favorite areas are or if i even have those. as if i have to know all of whats in the box to determine whats outside. rediculous. to call me names and attack my goals of changing this world to work against such an effort....you all really are something arent you. i hope you get hit by real speeding trains and hellfire missiles simultaneously. to die like the cancer cells you are to this organism. i need to say metaphorically so you all dont get confused. this domination on my part will make target practice with my assault rifles seem cooler. but what can i say. i have important planes to catch after. ill find more effective ways to acomplish my agenda and it wont involve wasting time at this place

Edited by anonymousone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.