View Full Version : But Light travels in straight lines!
TehJumpingJawa
24-09-2004, 21:27
You cannot 'bend light'
lol ok,
i guess we just wait up for the arguement from Maz. he'll be real happy :D
well i'll be damned, i just went to the other thread to find it closed. lets hope * ***
i was gonna slate ren here but i'll pm him instead, lets just say im not happy.
And i dont have MSN or any other irc/icq thingies.
|_maPex_|
24-09-2004, 22:16
Shoot a beam of light into some part of a fish tank. The light will go straight at the water, and due to Snell's law, it will go through the water slightly bent from its original angle of descent. If you have a mirror in the base of the tank the beam may bend back upwards towards the surface of the water at the same angle of descent it hit the mirror.
=Profcorron=
24-09-2004, 22:20
Light travels in straight lines, BUT if it gets stopped it will bend the light.
Oftherweise how can we see the moon, and the little refeltion our watches make.
Aezeroth
24-09-2004, 22:54
You cannot 'bend light'
You can bend light to a different direction once light enters a different medium, i.e. air to water.
Dacks Zero
24-09-2004, 22:55
Techniccaly, once light has been bend - one could say it had been stopped, but continued on a different trajectory.
Light travels in straight lines and shall only change it's direction if in stopped/bend by a surface.
It's the same thing as with Rainbows, the raindrops bend the light, causing us to see various colors and a curve in the rainbow, while in reality it's just multiple slight bends, which in our eyes show up smooth.
[KP] Tokakeke
24-09-2004, 22:56
Put [FES] Artem in front of it. He'll suck anything, even light inside himself. He's a walking black hole!
However, its theorised that black holes that really bend light.
Techniccaly, once light has been bend - one could say it had been stopped, but continued on a different trajectory.
.
actually snells law say's light's velocity has been changed, i dont think it ever stops
Light travels in straight lines and shall only change it's direction if in stopped/bend by a surface.
it never stop, or gets bent by a surface, it changes velocity when switching mediums.
It's the same thing as with Rainbows, the raindrops bend the light, causing us to see various colors and a curve in the rainbow, while in reality it's just multiple slight bends, which in our eyes show up smooth.
Its different parts of the spectrum have different, wavelenghts and so as they slow down they "appear" to bend. inactual fact light doesnt bend it just changes direction as it slowes down at different rates (i think).
Think of the classic Prisim effect. where u shine light thru one side. as the angle of incidence is different on both sides the light cannot rejoin and u get a rainbow all the different colours going in different directions.
gotta go but ye get the message
http://wow.osu.edu/Light/Part1/rainbow.htm (how to make a rainbow!!really)
also look up diffraction grating in google
Thx, a thread for me.
First. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/photon
Photons are particles of electro-magnetic radiation (which light also is). Particle has a mass. Every things that have a mass, are affected by forces. Gravity is a force.
====================================
Light is affected by gravity.
Read a book called... Umm... Whats it in English... "Stephen Hawkings Universe", i believe. It will explain the thing alot better than I.
Dacks Zero
25-09-2004, 00:36
actually snells law say's light's velocity has been changed, i dont think it ever stops
it never stop, or gets bent by a surface, it changes velocity when switching mediums.
Its different parts of the spectrum have different, wavelenghts and so as they slow down they "appear" to bend. inactual fact light doesnt bend it just changes direction as it slowes down at different rates (i think).
Think of the classic Prisim effect. where u shine light thru one side. as the angle of incidence is different on both sides the light cannot rejoin and u get a rainbow all the different colours going in different directions.
gotta go but ye get the message
http://wow.osu.edu/Light/Part1/rainbow.htm (how to make a rainbow!!really)
also look up diffraction grating in google
With ´´bend´´ I mean the trajectory is bend, not the light itself. Water for instance breaks it´s trajectory and well y´all know the story.
Has the BlackHole theory actually been proven aswell ?
You can't change the velocity of light dumbass. (See how I discuss slightly differently than ren?) :P
|_maPex_|
25-09-2004, 06:58
Has the BlackHole theory actually been proven aswell ?
Last time I checked, black holes were dangerous...you can try to prove it for us, though.
You can't change the velocity of light dumbass. (See how I discuss slightly differently than ren?) :P
Velocity = speed AND direction
When going from one medium to another (air to water, air to diamond, water to air, air into a thick film, etc) the velocity of light changes in that it bends from its original path. ALSO in mediums with a higher refractive index (Snell's law) it will go much slower. The speed of light, constant with the letter c, is defined as the distance light travels in a second in a vaccuum. Water is not a vaccuum and thus light will slow down in water. Air has a very low refractive index and its low enough to apply the speed of light, c, in physics problems relating to Earth's atmosphere since air is very close to a vaccuum.
With ´´bend´´ I mean the trajectory is bend, not the light itself. Water for instance breaks it´s trajectory and well y´all know the story.
fiar enough, but bend in the dictionary can mean change of direction.
Has the BlackHole theory actually been proven aswell
which one
You can't change the velocity of light dumbass. (See how I discuss slightly differently than ren?) :P
mapex seems to have this covered, but again
a)If u change the direction this changes the velocity
b)if u change the speed at which its travelling (slows down in denser mediums) u change the velocity and so u can DUDE/Dumass(whichever insult hurts more ;) ).
c) yes ur discussion method is a bit more to the point then rens, n1
btw is the important matter of cakes vs pie's still on the agenda here also
good for u sith, dont let any1 say otherwise ;)
The Dilemma of light.
I am always interested in this, and seeing how maz is bringing up photon issue.
Is light matter or energy?
Basically, as maz points out light has mass, and is therefore matter, but also light is a energy force and behaves like a wave. How can both be true?
So if light has matter, photons, why does it never stand to rest, or slow down (without changing medium’s)?
But if light is a transverse wave of energy, how can it have mass? Does sound (longitudinal wave) travel with a given mass, or a transverse ripple along a string add mass to the string?
Longitudinal waves travel in the same direction. Transverse waves travel perpendicular to the direction. Other than that their principles of operation can be classed as the same.
If u make the comparison that water waves are longitudinal and the contain water that is incorrect. A wave passed thru a medium causes that medium to resonate with it. Light doesn’t pass thru photons; light is made from photons. And what happens if light passes thru water, its direction (is not perpendicular) changes as does its speed, but does the water resonate with it or does the water just carry it! If a sound wave passes thru water eventually the sound energy dissipates, but does the light energy dissipate…
If light has mass does it not displace water, or does it not add to the mass of the water as it travels thu it…..at nighttime does the water get lighter? Or does it cool down??
Dammit, im no a scientist! Read the book, i will explain as well as i can.
Im not a scientist!
Have u been ever 10 km underwater? Good, me neither. Well, sun is shining 10 km up, but theres dark. Why? What do you think? Because the custom officer of water has not given light permission to enter so deeply? ^^
Im not a scientist, read the damned book!
Let the wikipedia try to explain.
Properties
All electromagentic radiation, from radio waves to gamma rays, is quantised as photons: that is, the smallest amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one photon whatever its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum. Photons are fundamental particles. Their lifetime is infinite, although they can be created and destroyed. Photons are commonly associated with visible light, which is actually only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Photons have zero invariant mass but a definite finite energy. Because they have energy, the theory of general relativity states that they are affected by gravity, and this is confirmed by observation.
Creation
Photons can be produced in a variety of ways, including emission from electrons as they change energy states or orbitals. Photons can be created by nuclear transitions, particle-antiparticle annihilation, or any fluctuations in an electromagnetic field. Special devices like masers can create coherent low energy photon radiation.
Damn it, i hate scientificial English, have to think 5 minutes for meaning of every word and still cant be sure. Read the damn book! "Stephen Hawkings Universe" in English, i believe, or let me answer in Finnish if this post is not enough.
hey Maz, can i just clarify. Your not a scientist right :D
U dont need to read hawkins book, as light is pretty straight forward (get the pun!). and gravity/photons doesnt really come into play as for why the lower ocean is dark.
As for light in the ocean, it doesnt get to the deepest layer, for some pretty straight forward reasons.
Light is an energy wave, so it is affected by the principles of waves.
1) Reflection: If the density difference between the media is large and the angle of incidence of the incoming light is small then we get reflection
2) Refraction: Speed of wave propagation depends on density of medium. As light enters water it slows down and changes direction
3)Scattering: Wave bounces off particles within a single medium, eventually loses energy
4)Absorption: Wave interacts with a molecule and transfers its energy to the molecules this generates heat energy
the ocean sees light at different intensities, at different levels for different reasons, from above its fairly obvious why it never reaches the lower levels.
1) Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This spectrum covers everything from gamma rays to radio waves
2) White light is the sum of colours that range from violet to red--thats why it appears white
3) When light enters water the red end of the spectrum is absorbed first
4) Blue light penetrates furthest -- it's why the ocean is blue
5) Light absorption determines how deep some organisms can live => The Photic zone
6) Light absorption is how the ocean is heated
the different zones are below.
the epipelagic, or sunlit zone:0-200m the top layer of the ocean where enough sunlight penetrates for plants to carry on photosynthesis.
the mesopelagic, or twilight, zone:50-1000 a dim zone where some light penetrates, but not enough for plants to grow.
the bathypelagic, or midnight, zone:1000-4000 the deep ocean layer where no light penetrates.
the abyssal zone: 4000-6000mthe pitch-black bottom layer of the ocean; the water here is almost freezing and its pressure is immense.
the hadal zone:6000-11000m the waters found in the ocean's deepest trenches.
Can we just keep closing these threads until the science wankers go away?
i dont think "wankers" is called for,
this is a off topic conversation, in a off topic forum???????
if ppl dont want to read this kind of thing why do the read the thread?
Can we just keep closing these threads until the science wankers go away?
just to be sure are u calling every1 who partook in these 2 threads a wanker (including ren and Urself, mr "velocity of light cant change")
or just me :D lol
Well, everyone (including myself for being drawn into the neverending circle of madness), but you doubly :D
Hmm... Deegs, i believe u asked what happens to light in water, does it move forwards infinite. I answered.
And what happens if light passes thru water, its direction (is not perpendicular) changes as does its speed, but does the water resonate with it or does the water just carry it! If a sound wave passes thru water eventually the sound energy dissipates, but does the light energy dissipate?
Seems a pretty clear question.
After my answer u start telling that u know theres dark in the deepest ocean, few hours after asking is there dark in the deepest ocean. ^^
And read the the book before u say anything else.
And: Energy=Interaction between 2 particles, so it there must be a particle to have energy, right?
And every single inaccurate thing in my posts, i blame the damned scientifical English, and if u say theres something inaccurate,
I say "Lets speak Finnish then", it would be fair, right? As fair as that i speak English now.
hmmm i asked a series of rethorical questions based on the quandary/dilemma of light.
No answer was nesessary as it is all tru, but you were free to speculate.
you then asked
Have u been ever 10 km underwater? Good, me neither. Well, sun is shining 10 km up, but theres dark. Why?
sorry bud but i thought u wanted an answer!
you then tried to explain this (i think that was ur intention) by letting wikipedia explain
All electromagentic radiation, from radio waves to gamma rays, is quantised as photons: that is, the smallest amount of electromagnetic radiation that can exist is one photon whatever its wavelength, frequency, energy, or momentum. Photons are fundamental particles. Their lifetime is infinite, although they can be created and destroyed. Photons are commonly associated with visible light, which is actually only a very limited part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Photons have zero invariant mass but a definite finite energy. Because they have energy, the theory of general relativity states that they are affected by gravity, and this is confirmed by observation.
Creation
Photons can be produced in a variety of ways, including emission from electrons as they change energy states or orbitals. Photons can be created by nuclear transitions, particle-antiparticle annihilation, or any fluctuations in an electromagnetic field. Special devices like masers can create coherent low energy photon radiation.
but that didnt really explain why it is dark at the bottom of the ocean.
So I explaind why light waves dont reach the bottom.
I dont think i missed anything
Energy is actually defined as the capacity of a physical system to do work
can u clarify where u got
Energy=Interaction between 2 particles as i'm interested to know what it means
cool but gimme bout 2/3 years to learn to speak finnish, :D
And do u know what acidus called u ..... and me doubly ..... i say geeks unite
OK, I didnt have time to read this entire thread, so I might kinda seem like im talking wierd, but Im just answering the threads question.
This is what I learned form the gifted class at school( isnt it kinda cool that this thread comes up when we learnin about light :D ). Light travels at 186, 300 mps. It cannot bend. When it hits a surface, it will reflect off that surface. If the surface is completely smooth, it will "reflect" all the light back, therefore giving us a reflection. Thats why you can see you're reflection in still water, but not wavy. Light would bounce off the water in all sorts of directions when it hits wavy water. So it doesnt go into our eyes as a reflection. So you see, light doesnt "bend" ever, just gets reflected. Some law( I cant rememeber waht its called) sais that "the angle of incedence(the light comes in at, lets say 45 degrees) is equal to the angle of reflection(that 45 degree light I mentioned before reflected off the surface at 45 degrees). That means that if you can see you're reflection, the surface is absolutley smooth. hat means, that light never bends, it just gets reflected(at an equal angle the light came in at). I wiosh I could show a picture, it would make explaining thgis a wole lot easier! :D
U wont learn enough Finnish in 5 years if u dont study 18/7, i can say.
Ill do it the easier way (for me):
If light is not a particle, what is it then? Energy wave? What is energy if it is not someTHING? Lets imagine ur COMPLETE VOID, nobody there. Theres nothing, so can there be energy then? Now lets imagine a flashlight there. Flashlight turned on in not-so-complete-void-anymore. What would happen? Now, lets imagine there comes a black hole and pulls the flashlight in itself. Now, where does the light go then? Continue moving infinitely because theres no matter to stop it? It would move forever without any loss of energy, which is impossible. Does it sound right?
hey HolmstN thanks for dropping by the "prove deegs wrong forum"
unfortunatly you aint so right urself, but this will infact make u much smarter than ur class.
Light travels at 186, 300 mps.
i know u meant miles per second but the SI unit of distance is metres denoted m so ur speed looks like 186, 300 metres per second(mps) ur right in miles but in metres its 299 792 458 m/s
It cannot bend.
while u are correcet to assume it cannot arc/curve which is what bend means, another defination for bend is "to change direction" so yes it can bend.
When it hits a surface, it will reflect off that surface. If the surface is completely smooth, it will "reflect" all the light back,
your thinking of a mirror and whilst true there is a very shiny piece of metal behind the glass(which is pretty smooth) that actually reflects the light.
If this were not the case then light couldnt penetrate the windows in ur home.
In a mirror the light moves thru the glass, and is reflected of the backing metal and then comes back out thru the glass. incidently the glass is only there to keep the metal clean and correctly alaigned.
Light would bounce off the water in all sorts of directions when it hits wavy water.
by the very defination of water, it has no form and cannot be a perfect reflective surface, if this were through again u could not see below the water level.
Some law( I cant rememeber waht its called)
snell's law
http://www.physics.nwu.edu/ugrad/vpl/optics/snell.html
sais that "the angle of incedence(the light comes in at, lets say 45 degrees) is equal to the angle of reflection
it doesnt it contributes to the angle of incidence and the angle of refraction
and anyway there is no direct correlation between the two
Angle of Incidence /Angle of Refraction (degrees)
0.00 0.00
5.00 3.76
10.0 7.50
40.0 28.9
60.0 40.6
80.0 47.8
Its always good to have a pot tho and stick in this forum for a while and you'll be the smartest geek in ur class
(EDIT; as an after thought i may have misinterpreted u.
Snell's Law defines how a wave bends when it crosses a boundary between two different materials, like light going through glass.
The angle of reflection is almost always equal to the initial angle between attack and the norm. on a smooth, reflective barrier surface-like shiny metal (white light cant penetrate) although snell covers this to a certain degree its usually avoided unless the angle of incidence is greater? (i think) than the critical angle (relevent to the material and the materials refractive index) then yes total internal reflection occurs)
Ill do it the easier way (for me):
If light is not a particle, what is it then?
electromagnetic radiation
Energy wave?
yes
What is energy if it is not someTHING?
the capacity of a physical system to do work, i.e electromagnetic radiation does work when it excites electrons in ur microwave heating ur food.
Lets imagine ur COMPLETE VOID, nobody there.
k
Theres nothing, so can there be energy then?
no energy cannot be created or destroyed only have its form changed.
Now lets imagine a flashlight there.
then it wouldnt be a void
Flashlight turned on in not-so-complete-void-anymore.
right
What would happen?
the flashlight would work
Now, lets imagine there comes a black hole and pulls the flashlight in itself.
oooookkkkkkkkkkk
Now, where does the light go then?
if the light was facing the black hole it would go in.
if it was facing away it would go away from the black hole but at a slower speed (assuming the speed of light is greater than the holes escape velocity from the gravitational pull)
any other angle other than 180 or 360/0 and we would have to talk intensity of light/black hole and distance. but the black hole would potentially (assuming escape velocity hasnt been superceeded due to distance from hole by the speed of light
Continue moving infinitely because theres no matter to stop it?
That doesnt make sense
It would move forever without any loss of energy,
all wave forms lose energy, light is debatable, as to the question of what its traveling thru.
any light emitted b4 hole appeared, could theoritically move away but as soon as the whole appears it will have an effect on already emitted light and yet to be emitted light.
which is impossible. Does it sound right?
sounds very theoritical. and highly improbable.
did i miss something in the translation :D
TehJumpingJawa
25-09-2004, 17:29
Experiment 1: How to demonstrate all straight lines are curved.
Apparatus:
1 piece of paper (aka space-time)
1 pen/pencil, 1 ruler (aka light)
1 orange (gravitional body)
Method:
1) Draw straight line on paper, using pen/pencil & ruler.
2) Place Orange on the paper, and lift the paper.
Results:
The weight of the fruit has caused the paper to bend.
This in turn alters the path of the straight line, converting it to a curve...
hehe nice1 jawa,
but ur wrong.
1) Draw straight line on paper, using pen/pencil & ruler.
You said it ur self the line is a straight line and it doesnt curve it just keeps changing direction, think of it as multiple tangents
fruit has caused the paper to bend.
This in turn alters the path of the straight line, converting it to a curve...
so the paper bends{space or whatever) this is only the medium the straight line travels.........
This in turn alters the path of the straight line
you said it there it alters the path of the straight line, not the line itself,
Any thing in orbit doenst move in a curve it just moves at the same speed but with a constantly changing velocity(changing direction)i.e it bends not curves.
Think back to my example of fibreglass cable, u can arc the cable (the medium the light travels thru) but the light stays in a straight line (not curved line).
N1 tho, very imaginative
Aezeroth
25-09-2004, 18:53
You can't change the velocity of light dumbass. (See how I discuss slightly differently than ren?) :P
Acid, you obviously never took a physics course before. Too much Star Wars probably. :p
Velocity and direction of light changes with the different mediums that light is in. The speed of light is actually dramatically different when it is in a vacuum than in a dense medium - like a diamond.
Can we just keep closing these threads until the science wankers go away?
*ahem* (wanker) *cough*
j/k ;)
Aezeroth
25-09-2004, 19:44
If you don't care, then why post? :cool:
CerberuS
25-09-2004, 19:49
If you don't care, then why post? :cool:
Acid can't resist anything that is labelled "off topic" ;)
I'll reply to anything.
Only really took an interest cus once again deegs is making a fool of himself.
I'll reply to anything.
Only really took an interest cus once again deegs is making a fool of himself.
what????!!!!!
Name 1 place i have made a fool of meslf boyo! or how am i now dude!
Anyway u wouldnt need to post to watch me make a fool of myself, now would u
oh ya, and as u seem to be not so up to date on what were talking about, how can u judge if i am being a fool.
edit: this is funny, 1 of fools meanings
[n] a professional clown employed to entertain a king or nobleman in the middle ages
are u having delusions of royalty or noblehoon???? hmmm???
You're right, I dont need to post to watch you make a fool of yourself.
continue 'dude'.
Umm... When i was reading ur answer to Jawas little story, i started wondering, have u heard Einsteins (Einstein it was, i believe) theory about gravity, space and EVERYTHING.
It goes like: Imagine a blanket, tied up from its every corner. It is space. Then, Drop a marble there. It is a planet. Now, if you drop a pea 0,5 cm away from the marble, it will roll down and collide with the planet. Why? Because the planet makes a hole there, and the closer it is to the marble, deeper is the hole=Closer to planet, greater the gravity.
And yes, if light moves near black hole, with right distance, it becomes an orbiter of the black hole.
Darth Bamse
25-09-2004, 21:11
Light cannot change its speed as far as I know, but it can definitely change direction. Gravity affects light, this can be observed where stars are seen as slightly to the side of other stars, when in fact they are behind them. Light cannot be "bent" because it consists of a lot of small particles. There are no "beams" of light. The thing I don't get is that light has no mass, how can these things happen then?
You're right, I dont need to post to watch you make a fool of yourself.
continue 'dude'.
exactly dude, its like no-one had to post to watch to see u makea fool out of urself when u came on a science thread and said
You can't change the velocity of light dumbass.
or noboby had to post to see u make a fool out of urself when u called all contributers to these forums "Wankers" and then admited u were one
just to be sure are u calling every1 who partook in these 2 threads a wanker
Well, everyone (including myself...
lol :D hehe :D glad were in agreement
darth have u read the thread.....
Light cannot change its speed as far as I know,
when it goes thru diff mediums it changes its speed.
Light cannot be "bent" because it consists of a lot of small particles.
nonsense, bend also means change in direction, not just arc/curve so it can be bent. And anyway why would small particles make a diff.
The thing I don't get is that light has no mass, how can these things happen then?
did u read maz's now notorious weblink ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
They dont happen solely because of mass, down the bottom of his link the go into effective mass, when traveling in a medium. But the gravity etc is caused by the energy in the light.
Umm... When i was reading ur answer to Jawas little story, i started wondering, have u heard Einsteins (Einstein it was, i believe) theory about gravity, space and EVERYTHING.
Yes in his many guises, but i think its Special relativity for space/time and general relativity for gravity
It goes like: Imagine a blanket, tied up from its every corner. It is space. Then, Drop a marble there. It is a planet. Now, if you drop a pea 0,5 cm away from the marble, it will roll down and collide with the planet. Why? Because the planet makes a hole there, and the closer it is to the marble, deeper is the hole=Closer to planet, greater the gravity.
exactly now were getting somewhere, as u put it when a planet/body gets dropped in it makes a hole.....good example, as if u put a body, in a pure void there is nothing it can make a hole in........see. Thats why no-one can assume what will happen there regardless of what laws/rules of the universe we have. that includes, gravity, ppl pushing, flashlights and every1's favourite rockets!
And yes, if light moves near black hole, with right distance, it becomes an orbiter of the black hole.
Light in a geosynchronous Orbit, interesting thought. but as light is the fastest thing in the galaxy wouldn't it keep doubling up on itself? As light is a wave how would diffraction/refraction/reflection/absorbation/scattering effect its orbit. Also as its an energy, as the energy dissipates, that would effectively, constantly (like every fraction of a second) change....hence constanly alter the gravitational pull...either pulling it out of orbit, or letting it go, and as light is the fastest speed in the known universe, the escape velocity from the earth is 25, 000 miles per hour.......holm said light moves at 186,000 miles per hour.....so i guess it would never orbit earth.
so for a black hole defination
black hole - An object whose gravity is so strong that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.
hence pulling everything into it....As there is nothing stronger than gravity in a black hole, i'm not sure how light would orbit it.......considering how these holes are similar to an inverted cone anyway.....is it possible for an orbit of an inverted cone!!
So maybe not impossible maz, again highly imporbable. dont think any1 has proof either way ;) interesting tho
just thinking u didnt say what type of orbit it was...i guess it could fall into a declineing orbit, eventually being suked in.
But as light has no relative mass, or no infinite mass only efective mass i dont think it could hold any type of orbit...... using newtons laws and keplers
look here
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/singularity.html
This is the location of the innermost unstable circular orbit. To maintain circular orbit at this radius requires going at the speed of light. In particular light itself can orbit the black hole in circular orbits at this radius. For this reason, this location is sometimes called the photon sphere.
very interesting, and here we have light coming to a dead stop, very interesting
Photons do not orbit in circles at the horizon, just skimming the surface. The place where photons orbit in circles is the photon sphere, at 1.5 Schwarzschild radii. Photons emitted at the horizon fall in; except that if a photon is emitted exactly vertically outward exactly at the horizon, then it will hover at the horizon, not moving at all.
lol crazy
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/gotops.html
You now descend to the photon sphere. A photon sphere is a location where gravity is so strong that light can travel in circles. Photons orbit the black hole at the distance of the photon sphere. A photon could leave the back of your head, go once around the black hole, and be seen by your eye - you can see the back of your head.
ya maz, this is close to what i thought...
http://www.alumni.ca/~chowa3a/photon.htm
However, light rays cannot stay inside the photon sphere for very long, as eventually, it will collide with another light ray, thus disrupting its orbit around the black hole. At this point, the light ray either shoots out in space or flies into the center of the black hole.
Announcement: The rocket moves against its fuel.
Announcement: The rocket moves against its fuel.
havent we been thru this often enough, if u want to continue plz tell me where i disagree that a rocket moves against its own thrust
So how many of you have web pages and encarta open while you browse these threads? *Looks to Deegs*
walker youd have to be an idiot not to reference material to be absolutely sure your correct, before posting.
Or a fool! *looks to acidus* ;)
or anyone for that matter that got something wrong in the last few thread, either point out by themselves or some1 else
:D
You said a rocket couldnt move in a void a couple of pages ago deegs. You seemed to think it needed air or something to react against because you mistakenly thought it moved via friction.
The amusing thing about this neverending thread is that its not a discussion.
Its your arguing with everyone else.
it cant move in a void dumass!
and i only argue with whats wrong, not as a general rule of thumb :rolleyes:
sigh, and yet again acidus its u that is wrong! ya, friction makes a rocket move!! where'd i say that...sigh...if u cant be arsed reading a post dont be dum enough to misinterpret it and then post ur lack of understanding...sigh
MAZ at this point the language barrier is not good enough a reason for not understanding voids....
Any1 else ye've no excuse.....
My god there is a whole thread on it.......
I wont quote all of it (though maybe u should read it) just the last most relevent part where i won ren over to my thinking bout rockets!
it pushes from its thrust. and as all areas contain matter/forces the thrust in return acts on this matter/force.
Well, over the course of this thread - finally - you've managed to come to the right conclusion
right, lets all be sure bout some things.
a rocket works by differential pressure, the pressure in the combustion chamber is a hell of a lot higher than when the pressure at the nozle (as it expands towards air pressure as it is realesed).
Its this difference in pressure that pushes the rocket, (like a balloon moves when u release the air)
That is what tries to initialise motion.
Right to continue initialising motion 2 thing are needed.
To overcome matter/barriers (i used air; and the friction they may cause as the matter rubs against the rocket),and to overcome any forces stopping it (i used gravity u can use any force ye like;i.e a rope tying the rocket down).
To overcome air friction the force needed to move the rocket has to be greater than the frictional force applied between the rocket and air. IS this clear.
To overcome gravity, the rockets needs to push away from the source of gravity. I.E The force needed to move the rocket has to be greater than the force used to hold it at rest otherwise it will not move at all.
When 2 pressures interact, they create a mechanical force that pushes the higher away from the lower.
THIS is the mechanical force needed to react against friction and gravity (or matter and force), ie overcome friction and overcome gravity. WHATS SO DIFFICULT.
Every freaking rocket MUST over come these to move....... the only place it doesnt have to is in a void which is impossible, as there is no such place in this universe, so u cant apply basic principles of science to it.
Again a void is not real. Did i mention there is no such thing as a void!
HOW DO U NOT UNDERSTAND.
MAZ, You keep telling me to read hawkins book, and einsteins theories, had u read them yourself you would not be arguing with me!
VOID:
A)general science says voids cant happen, so a rocket obviously cant move in a place that doesnt exist and every1 arguing this point is wrong!
B) If ye want to theorize on motion in voids, again general science and philosophy says U CANT MOVE IN A VOID. so every1 else is wrong
Who in their right mind is idiotic enough to argue with that!
:D i feel better now :D
Any idiot could argue in here using referance material, question is...whats the point?
Any idiot could argue in here using referance material, question is...whats the point?
The point is about talking about things u are interested in and maybe learning more as u go along.
I found maz's stuff on photons interesting.....i didn't know all of it but i knew some and i also liked the stuff about the black hole!
With reference material, ppl could make their own/fix all the MBII bugs without asking questions......Why dont they? Why dont u go to the other forums and ask them why they post?
point is why are u posting here? its a science thread if u dont want to talk about it?
And actually i dont think any idiot could do it, could u?
Doubt it, however prove me wrong, post a arguement and follow it thru? I dont think u could!
For one i didn't check anything, just spoke from what i remembered from class.
And i've still seen no proof that a rocket wouldn't be able to move in an all empty except for the rocket place (since void seems to be kind of disliked around these parts).
This is an off-topic forum, I am merely being off-topic.
And as for debate, id much prefer a history or politics one, than science which as right or wrong answers, and thus is pointless.
it cant move in a void dumass!
Yes it can, as various people more intelligent than yourself have tried to explan to you, a rocket requires nothing more than its own fuel to move.
This means it can move if it was the only thing that existed.
and i only argue with whats wrong, not as a general rule of thumb
You argue because you are argumentative and have the maturity of a child. You lack the mental faculty to even string a sentence together, yet constantly insult others about their own intelligence (which, by simple law of averages is almost certainly superior to your own).
To save you some time I will write your reply for you:
"OMG U R DUM!!"!"!!111!, sux mofo I r cleveerererererer 2 than ju dude."
Now, go ahead and use that stellar intellect of yours to misinterpet and miss the point of everything I've written once more. ;)
This is an off-topic forum, I am merely being off-topic.
lol, i guess
And as for debate, id much prefer a history or politics one, than science which as right or wrong answers, and thus is pointless.
nice, sounds interesting.
Start a thread, i'll drop by, considering i'm MR arguement, bring loads of oil in case of friction ;)
Yes it can, as various people more intelligent than yourself have tried to explan to you, a rocket requires nothing more than its own fuel to move.
This means it can move if it was the only thing that existed.
You argue because you are argumentative and have the maturity of a child. You lack the mental faculty to even string a sentence together, yet constantly insult others about their own intelligence (which, by simple law of averages is almost certainly superior to your own).
To save you some time I will write your reply for you:
"OMG U R DUM!!"!"!!111!, sux mofo I r cleveerererererer 2 than ju dude."
Now, go ahead and use that stellar intellect of yours to misinterpet and miss the point of everything I've written once more. ;)
lol, ah well if anything i guess u bring a bit of humour here!
Tell me this then, Are u saying there is such a thing as a void?
Cos i'd apreciate if u told me where! I'd love to buy a rocket and put it in there to see if it moves cos loads of ppl more intelligent than me told me it would.........where is it acidus?
Tell me also, if a rocket requires nothing more than its own fuel to move (actually this is open to every1 but acidus particularly, as i said you'd have to be idiotioc to argue!:D ), I dont hear any1 mention how much fuel is needed...........
As acid"Mr You can't change the velocity of light dumbass"us (i'll use him as he was the idiotic 1 to argue :D ) states a rocket needs no more than his own fuel to move! if the "rocket fuel" was replaced with a match in the combustion area, by ur logic this would move a rocket? as this would be the fuel right? and thats all u need? just to produce a differential in pressure in a rocket, doesn't matter what size force is required? doesnt matter that this force need to be greater than air friction maybe? or gravity maybe?
By acid"Mr You can't change the velocity of light dumbass"us's theory, whether there is a force acting on a rocket, be it friction(matter/barrier/air/space{even the earth})???? or gravity(or any force-the rope holding it down)???? or any other force for that matter or not, this is unimportant as the rocket only needs its basic thrust and doesnt need to overcome any other forces. right?
There u go acidus, when a match is ignited it produces, heat and gas and thus in an enclosed space(cumbustion chamber of a rocket) forces gas out the nozzle, at a lower pressure than the gas inside the combustion chamber, in exactly the same principle as the rocket fuel.....correct?
so obviously by acid"Mr You can't change the velocity of light dumbass"us's theory given that by the very nature of an igniting match causing a differential pressure in a rocket; this is all thats needed to move a rocket (lets say off earth from Cape Canaveral) cos obviously air friction and acceleration due to gravity dont matter????
Nice1 acidus, u just rewrote physics!
Thanks dude for saving me time, copy and paste works wonders
"OMG U R DUM!!"!"!!111!, sux mofo I r cleveerererererer 2 than ju dude."
lol ur a good sport anyway acidus, but infuture make sure u understand what u post as ur waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy to ez to correct
[KP] Tokakeke
27-09-2004, 00:58
Argh.. to answer one by one..
exactly now were getting somewhere, as u put it when a planet/body gets dropped in it makes a hole.....good example, as if u put a body, in a pure void there is nothing it can make a hole in........see. Thats why no-one can assume what will happen there regardless of what laws/rules of the universe we have. that includes, gravity, ppl pushing, flashlights and every1's favourite rockets
Ever heard of a little thing called the space-time continuum?
A)general science says voids cant happen, so a rocket obviously cant move in a place that doesnt exist and every1 arguing this point is wrong!
B) If ye want to theorize on motion in voids, again general science and philosophy says U CANT MOVE IN A VOID. so every1 else is wrong
So if I take a cow, stick it in a vacuum, suck all the internal organs and air out of it, etc etc, and it's 'empty', I have a void. Nothing is in it. Air? Nope. Oxygen, nitrogen, cow guts? Nope. Except possibly Artem trying to find some 'hindquarters' to sell and yell '...in bed'. He's done that you know. I'm confused about your second point also, I don't believe philosophy gets into voids, that's chemists/physicists domain. Wacky Deegs.
Ever heard of a little thing called the space-time continuum?
Why yes, have u?
So if I take a cow, stick it in a vacuum, suck all the internal organs and air out of it, etc etc, and it's 'empty', I have a void. Nothing is in it. Air? Nope. Oxygen, nitrogen, cow guts? Nope. Except possibly Artem trying to find some 'hindquarters' to sell and yell '...in bed'. He's done that you know. I'm confused about your second point also, I don't believe philosophy gets into voids, that's chemists/physicists domain. Wacky Deegs.
OH GOD, where do i start toka,
POINT 1
stick it in a vacuum,
Lets be clear toka, for a pure vacuum, it has to be absolute........
That means it cant be in a box, in a jar, or any other apparatus in a physics lab.... for ur benefit as maz christened the threads reference!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum
Quantum physics reveals that even an ideal vacuum, with an measured pressure of zero torr, isn't really empty. One reason is that the walls of the vacuum chamber emit light in the form of black-body radiation: visible light if they are at a temperature of thousands of degrees, infrared light if they are cooler. This soup of photons will be in thermodynamic equilibrium with the walls, and the vacuum can consequently be said to have a particular temperature. More fundamentally, there are quantum-mechanical fluctuations in the vacuum.
this basically means that for a void to be pure it has to be the only thing in the universe (as it cant touch anything else including space/you/rockets/cows)
I have a void.
Ha if only it was that ez
I'm confused about your second point also, I don't believe philosophy gets into voids, that's chemists/physicists domain
oooooohhhhhhhhhh dude read the natural sciences thread, particular the bits in the last3ish pages..page18 onish
http://www.moviebattles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1082&page=18&pp=10
Anyway most of the old physists were philosophers, before physics was cool plilosophy was like theoritical physics, when physics(general science back then) couldnt explain something, ppl used think/speculate/philosophise/theorize bout it, ren and i used the earth is flat vs round example (cerb is still arguing tho), philosophers were speculating about the shape of the earth hundreds and thousands of years b4 the shape was determined ..... thus by philosophing about a unanswerable problem, this essentially lays the path for science to use the philosophical arguements and try to apply them in principle. most scients espcially the theoritical ones were philosophers, newton, einstein, plato, homer, plank, kepler etc
i said voids dont exist (well so does einstein-not to take all the credit).......the biggest mind to argue this point is NEWTON as can be observed from his manuscript
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/#4
look up chapter 5.2, then para 6 (VI as its written), basically he predicts motion in a void is impossible.
however, cos he had no proof of voids existing, back in his day b4 theoritical physics, his arguement was considered philosophical.............it however was part of the basis einstein applied theorized SR on. And subsequently disproved the possibilities of voids/absolute space. so if it aint there, you cant move in it! it aint that complicated
does that answer?????
Whacky me! never, foolish & wrong apparantly, so dont believe what i just wrote ask acid"Mr You can't change the velocity of light dumbass"us
=Profcorron=
27-09-2004, 02:48
Rockets work when fuel (fuel) gets comusted with oxegyn, and a spark to start it)
The following compustion gets pushed out of the bottom of the rocket and pushes against what is already there, eg. previous combistion)
And Voids.
A Pure Void is impossable but other kinds are possable, eg. void of gravity, Air void.
Often people think a void as no air, or space but neather are Pure void, Its impossable to create a pure void as there will alwas be something. and to use an old argue meant If theres a pure void it can't be real becuase for it to be pure voidy it can't have a void it it.
So its impossable to create a PURE void and therefore to move in it. BUT other voids a re possable but it doesn't really matter becuase the best way to create a nice big void would be to host a MB server scince party and start discousing the nature of life the Universe and everything (the answere to which is 42 lol- and the question what is 6 times nine acording to D*** Adams ) and then get a series of crashes n00b attackes and 5 convertions to base ja and stronghold.
LOOC Thats better all the sillyness out now.
Tell me this then, Are u saying there is such a thing as a void?
Cos i'd apreciate if u told me where
Somewhere in the head of deegs. And I agree, I'd love you to buy a rocket and put it there.
I dont hear any1 mention how much fuel is needed...........
Its makes no difference, thats just splitting hairs. The distance it moves will be relative to the amount of fuel, but we can say with some certainy that some fuel will result in some movement.
As acid"Mr You can't change the velocity of light dumbass"us (i'll use him as he was the idiotic 1 to argue ) states a rocket needs no more than his own fuel to move! if the "rocket fuel" was replaced with a match in the combustion area, by ur logic this would move a rocket? as this would be the fuel right? and thats all u need? just to produce a differential in pressure in a rocket, doesn't matter what size force is required? doesnt matter that this force need to be greater than air friction maybe? or gravity maybe?
A match? Are you on crack? Seriously, because its either that or you're one of the most determined morons Its ever been my misfortune to come across. You are so stupid you ascend stupidity so there isnt even a word to describe you properly. the greatest sign of your stupidity is you actually believe you're intelligent :eek:
Rockets work when fuel (fuel) gets comusted with oxegyn, and a spark to start it)
er....no note really, the principle is differential pressures....really. like how a balloon moves if you make a hole in it
The following compustion gets pushed out of the bottom of the rocket and pushes against what is already there, eg. previous combistion)
no it dont here look at this is ya dont believe me! look at this link then come back and apologise
http://www.aero.org/publications/SpacePrinc/HowRocket.html
And Voids.
A Pure Void is impossable but other kinds are possable, eg. void of gravity, Air void.
So its impossable to create a PURE void and therefore to move in it. .
yaaaaaaaaaaaaa prof i think i love u,
and ya it was an absolute void we were talking about!
Its makes no difference, thats just splitting hairs. The distance it moves will be relative to the amount of fuel, but we can say with some certainy that some fuel will result in some movement.
Ah afraid it does make a difference, the distance it moves wont be relative to the amount of fuel......cos if u put in such a small amount of fuel that has such a small resultant thrust, too small to even equal or excell the force's holding it at rest it'll go nowhere. again using ur theory, any amount of fuel, (shall we say a thimble full) will result in some movement (ok the rocket is encased in concrete on the ground).
Your theory says that for a rocket encased in concrete on the ground, with a thimble full of fuel can move..and u say it with certainty...hmmmmmmmmmmm
I say that for a rocket encased in concrete on the ground, u need enough fuel, to provide enough thrust to a) be capable of moving the rocket, b) be capable of breaking free of the concrete and c) be capable of lifting of the ground, thus breaking free of gravity.....hmmmm and u call me stupid
Cmon joking aside u gotta see this. your wrong
A match? Are you on crack? Seriously, because its either that or you're one of the most determined morons Its ever been my misfortune to come across. You are so stupid you ascend stupidity so there isnt even a word to describe you properly. the greatest sign of your stupidity is you actually believe you're intelligent :eek:
hmmm now thats harsh, a match resembles the principle of rocketmotion and thrust perfectly....... you obviously never studied natural science at school let alone physics, if u cant even grasp the principle of a match stick rocket.
http://www.matchstickrockets.com/howto.html
or
http://roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~zerog/PreviousTeams/f02/match.htm
or
http://www.mercola.com/2004/mar/20/matchstick_rocketry.htm
or
http://www.spacescience.co.uk/pages/basic.asp?title=hintntips2110
get the message, its 1 of the most popular physics expeirments ever
god acidus, you really dont do urself any justice,
Ur obviously unsure of physics REFERENCE STUFF before u post crap.
A rocket could not move in a void, as an absolute void would have nothing in it, if the rocket is there it isnt a void anymore.
I win.
CerberuS
27-09-2004, 09:15
This is leading nowhere plus getting out of hand. Wonder how people can get worked up about something like physics that much...
Closed.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.0 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.