Scientific Models

TheLoneRanger

Although im no physicist, it seems logical -eg S/he ask why does light passing through a glass slow down on entry but speed back up on exit when heat/energy has been lost?

Woah?

Density of the glass? The light energy is not lost; it is only slowed down. The Glass is denser than the air; therefore the light is slowed down upon traveling through it then when it gets through its back into air, so it speeds back up.

This is BASIC physics they are refuteing...

Reply 4

OP

The Bigger Picture

Woah?

Density of the glass? The light energy is not lost; it is only slowed down.

This is BASIC physics they are refuteing...

Surely something that has been slowed down has lost energy- why does it speed back up again?

Reply 5

TheLoneRanger

Surely something that has been slowed down has lost energy- why does it speed back up again?

It hasn't lost its energy atall, It hasnt been "used up".

Its like air resistance. Imagine it as energy moving the opposite direction when in the glass. The light has to "move against" this density.

Metaphoricaly; Imagine you are walking head on into strong wind - It slows you down. Then it stops and you can walk normal pace again.

This site is absolute codswallop - Read it and take a KS3 Science textbook out.

Reply 6

OP

The Bigger Picture

It hasn't lost its energy atall, It hasnt been "used up".

Its like air resistance. There is energy in the opposite direction when in the glass.

Fair enough. How about Magnetism - if i stick a magnet on my fridge, it'll still be attached 10 years later- perpetual energy?

Reply 7

TheLoneRanger

Fair enough. How about Magnetism - if i stick a magnet on my fridge, it'll still be attached 10 years later- perpetual energy?

Yes, The material is magetic - That is one of it's physical properties, simple as. Its a permenant magnet; as opposed to a temorary magnet such as an electromagnet, which requires an electrical current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Seriously mate; do not buy into this site. Its awful - Its a bunch of religious people (Probably creationists) appealing to those without an education in core science.

Reply 8

OP

The Bigger Picture

Yes, The material is magetic - That is one of it's physical properties, simple as. Its a permenant magnet; as opposed to a temorary magnet such as an electromagnet, which requires an electrical current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Seriously mate; do not buy into this site. Its awful - Its a bunch of religious people (Probably creationists) appealing to those without an education.

I suppose my questions are best left to the classroom, thanks anyway :biggrin:

Reply 9

TheLoneRanger

I suppose my questions are best left to the classroom, thanks anyway :biggrin:

I mean; Just look at some of the dumbass questions it asks

Q: How can freezing water expand, even bursting
metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it?

Do they know anything of molecular stucture!? Or Potential Energy? Solids, Liquids and Gasses?

And what about THIS

Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without
its molecules giving way, collapsing the table?

Looks like they need to go back to school. Its akin to asking "Why doesn't the earth colapse in on itself!?"

Reply 10

OP

The Bigger Picture

I mean; Just look at some of the dumbass questions it asks

Do they know anything of molecular stucture!? Or Potential Energy? Solids, Liquids and Gasses?

And what about THIS

:eek:

Looks like they need to go back to school.

lol

Reply 11

sdt

12

Suffice to say, this "independent researcher" aka crackpot doesn't even understand the most basic physcs. That explains why he won't actually approach anyone who knows enough to debunk his trash, and there's a reason the book is "Print on demand" - there won't be any of that from anyone remotely intelligent!

Reply 12

Psyk

16

TheLoneRanger

Although im no physicist, it seems logical -eg S/he ask why does light passing through a glass slow down on entry but speed back up on exit when heat/energy has been lost?

Energy will have been lost. The intensity of the light will be lower after it has come out. Apparently, (this is how I understand it, it's probably not particularly accurate) when light "slows down" it's because it's getting absorbed, then consequently re-emitted by particles in the medium. So that would explain why it comes out at the same speed it went in with.

TheLoneRanger

Fair enough. How about Magnetism - if i stick a magnet on my fridge, it'll still be attached 10 years later- perpetual energy?

It doesn't need energy to stay there. It's stationary, it's not doing any work. Therefore no energy is required. Sounds counter-intuitive since we can tell it uses up enegy for a human to hold up a heavy object, but that's because of the way our bodies work. If you think of it like an object sitting on a table it makes more sense. We don't expect the table to somehow be using enery to keep the object sitting on it. If you think about it, the table is doing the exact same thing as the magnet.

Reply 13

ChemistBoy

16

Why to people continually think that an argument from ignorance is not going to get them laughed at? Light "slowing down" is not as simple as it first appears (as has been mentioned above - the fact that the author of this site does not know this, doesn't mean they've hit on a new physics.

Reply 14

Sidhe

TheLoneRanger

check this site out

What do you guys think?

Well for a start the twins paradox isn't actually a paradox, it's a consequence of this equation, which basically explains frame of reference in terms of simultaneity according to relative acceleration.

w'=\frac{w-v}{1-wv/c^2}.

And the relevant acceleration based tensors.

x^\nu=\left(t, x, y, z\right)

\partial_0 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}, \quad \partial_1 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}, \quad \partial_2 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}, \quad \partial_3 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}.

Unparseable latex formula:

\eta_{\alpha\beta} = \begin{pmatrix}[br]-c^2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\[br]0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\[br]0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\[br]0 & 0 & 0 & 1[br]\end{pmatrix}

Unparseable latex formula:

\eta^{\alpha\beta} = \begin{pmatrix}[br]-1/c^2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\[br]0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\[br]0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\[br]0 & 0 & 0 & 1[br]\end{pmatrix}

And co-ordinate transforms give.

Unparseable latex formula:

\Lambda^{\mu'}{}_\nu = \begin{pmatrix}[br]\gamma & -\beta\gamma/c & 0 & 0\\[br]-\beta\gamma c & \gamma & 0 & 0\\[br]0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\[br]0 & 0 & 0 & 1[br]\end{pmatrix}

So I find it hard to think anyone would take these creationist nuts seriously, since they actually don't understand why it was called a paradox and why it isn't nor never was meant to be one, merely to highlight misunderstandings about SR.

Reply 15

yawn

17

Basic analysis there, Sidhe.

Where's 'sigma'? :biggrin:

Reply 16

Sidhe

So I find it hard to think anyone would take these creationist nuts seriously,

Yeah, And some do :eek:

. I think we need to add to Darwins hypothesis - "De-volution"

Reply 17

Sidhe

yawn

Basic analysis there, Sidhe.

Where's 'sigma'? :biggrin:

It's a differential. sigma is only used in integrals and summation.

:smile:

\partial_0 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}, \quad \partial_1 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}, \quad \partial_2 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}, \quad \partial_3 \phi = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial z}.

These are partial differentials. :smile:

That's actually basically a sort of Laplacian transformation applied to the SR equations obtained from the Lorentz transform.

Basically the twin who has accelerated will have aged slower than the twin who stayed on Earth because of time and space dilation associated with SR and acceleration.

Intuitively it sounds wrong, but experimentally time does dilate according to both SR and GR, and global positioning systems have to account for both or they go out of synch.

Reply 18