The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Franktalk]

Hey Frank,

......

Please surprise me and come back with something that makes one stop and question what others have said, rather than some sort of dismissive response.

There is nothing I can do to change the mind of another. While I was buried in orthodox science no one could get me to even look at alternate explanations for many natural events. I will ask you a simple question. It is well known that light slows down when it enters a dense medium like glass. But it speeds back up again once it leaves the glass. Using your understanding of orthodox physics tell me why the light speeds back up?

[_Philo Sofee]

Hey Frank,

......

Please surprise me and come back with something that makes one stop and question what others have said, rather than some sort of dismissive response.

There is nothing I can do to change the mind of another. While I was buried in orthodox science no one could get me to even look at alternate explanations for many natural events. I will ask you a simple question. It is well known that light slows down when it enters a dense medium like glass. But it speeds back up again once it leaves the glass. Using your understanding of orthodox physics tell me why the light speeds back up?

Horse pucky.... present evidence. I change my mind based on evidenced evidence, so go for it. I have been reading Dr W. and Mak for quite a while and I have hardly ever seen them buffalo their way. You are the one I am wondering about, sincerely. PRESENT THE EVIDENCE for your claims, ridicule should NEVER be the response if you have the goods.

[Guest]

Thanks for the response.

So typical.

Franktalk,

You are correct. It is absolutely typical.

(1) Typically, you enter a thread on a subject you know little or nothing about by making some outrageous claim to the effect that all of mainstream science, let alone folks who challenge you on this board, do not have super special insight to reality that you and some small group of insiders possess. In this case, you went so far as to make the statement that peer reviewed mainstream science was "crap."

(2) Typically, folks who know better challenge your outrageous claims and easily show them to be nonsense - in this case by citing facts and evidence that anyone with a high school education and any background at all in physics would consider common knowledge.

(3) You then claim by that response to your nonsense claims with facts is typical, that such beliefs as you express are really a matter of opinion, and that you are entitled to yours.

(4) Folks who have stuck with the thread, in spite of your derail, generally agree that the exchange was typical. Folks who challenge your nonsense stand ready for the next time you make a fool of yourself.

That said, the reason that these exchanges are of interest to me is that their structure and content are analogous to the way in which those of religious faith confront scientific evidence that is contrary to their unfounded (and often nonsensical) beliefs.

Such individuals can follow an exchange such as has just played out on this thread and say to themselves something to the effect that, "I knew that light could be polarized", or "I know that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light", and they no doubt feel a bit sorry for Franktalk and about how foolish he appears to be.

However, when these individuals retire for the night, they will still say their evening prayers fully believing that their anthropomorphic, flesh and bone Elohim, who they believe dwells near Kolob, a star that can be no closer than 4 light years distant, will nonetheless hear and answer their prayers in the immediate future - certainly less than 8 years.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

However, when these individuals retire for the night, they will still say their evening prayers fully believing that their anthropomorphic, flesh and bone Elohim, who they believe dwells near Kolob, a star that can be no closer than 4 light years distant, will nonetheless hear and answer their prayers in the immediate future - certainly less than 8 years.

I always wondered what the 'Star Trek' answer to this one was when I was a believer. This was a shelf item for me, so I just made up some ad hoc theory that the Holy Ghost was an omnipresent force, as it were, through which a little vibration over here would have a sort of temporal harmonic vibration over there.

- Doc

[_DrW]

Hey Frank,

......

Please surprise me and come back with something that makes one stop and question what others have said, rather than some sort of dismissive response.

There is nothing I can do to change the mind of another. While I was buried in orthodox science no one could get me to even look at alternate explanations for many natural events. I will ask you a simple question. It is well known that light slows down when it enters a dense medium like glass. But it speeds back up again once it leaves the glass. Using your understanding of orthodox physics tell me why the light speeds back up?

Franktalk,

Fence Sitter has stated upthread that he is not all that familiar with the physics of electromagnetism. Moreover, your question is one that anybody who is the least bit familiar with physics would not ask in the first place. Because they understand special relativity, they would know that the speed of light in a vacuum (a non-dispersive medium) is the same for all observers - period.

The behavior of light is well understood to be an interaction between the photon field (characterized mainly by its frequency components and polarization) and the characteristics of the medium in which the light is propagating. These interactions are described by one or more equations that are applied, as appropriate, according to the parameter values that need to be determined (or questions being asked). That's it.

If one is referring to white light - say sunlight - then light is comprised of photons of many different frequencies and therefore different wavelengths. These have frequency dependent interactions with dispersive media such as glass and can thus be separated by wavelength (color) when passing through a glass grating or prism.

The answer to your question has to do with the index of refraction of the glass and the relationship between the speed of light in a vacuum "c", which is a constant, and the phase velocity of light in a dispersion medium, which is given by the simple relationship:
Vp = c / n;

where:
Vp is the phase velocity in dispersive medium
c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and
n is the index of refraction of the dispersive medium.

In a non-dispersive medium, such as a vacuum or air at STP for example, the index of refraction is very close to 1, so there is no difference between c and the phase velocity Vp. .

Before providing any more detail (including the implications of the fact that a photon is a gauge boson, as well as the difference between phase velocity Vp, group velocity Vg, and the propagation velocity of the wave front), it seems only fair that you give us the answer to this same question - your question - by using equations or a physical explanation based on your special knowledge.

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

Lots of words that mean nothing. All you did was restate what is observed. To answer my question you must describe the process that results in what we observe.

[_Maksutov]

Lots of words that mean nothing.

Poor Frank.

[_Maksutov]

http://lesswrong.com/lw/94i/why_some_pe ... _of_their/

Why some people seem to be proud of their ignorance?

14 uzalud 31 December 2011 01:38PM

Sometimes I run into people that have rather strong opinions on some topic, and it turns out that they are basing them on quite shallow and biased information. They are aware that their knowledge is quite limited compared to mine, and they admit that they don't want to put in the effort needed to learn enough to level the field.

But that's not really a problem. What is bothering me is that, sometimes, that declaration of ignorance is expressed with some kind of pride.

This behaviour is noticeable on other levels too, in politics or in the sciences-humanities culture clash.

I came up with several hypotheses which might account for this:

Being opinionated on a topic you know little about is a sign of confidence and bravery. Any fool can play it safe and carefully form opinions based on solid knowledge, but it takes a real man to do it quickly and decidedly, with only partial information.

Knowing something is an identity badge. In-depth knowledge of science, or computers, or any number of other fields is a sign that you are a geek. People are proud of not being geeks, or are a proud member of some other group that does not care for that particular knowledge.

Knowledge is relative and/or unimportant. Not caring about concrete knowledge is a sign of post-modernist sophistication, or an avant-garde, non-mainstream thinking, which is something to be proud of.

Displaying pride overcompensates for shame one normally feels when forced to acknowledge one's ignorance.

Do you notice this behaviour too? What do you think causes it?

[_Maksutov]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/book ... irtue.html

“Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue,” the scholar Tom Nichols writes in his timely new book, “The Death of Expertise.” “To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything. It is a new Declaration of Independence: No longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.”

[_DrW]

DrW,

Lots of words that mean nothing. All you did was restate what is observed. To answer my question you must describe the process that results in what we observe.

I provided a few words and an equation that has been both explanatory and predictive of what we observe regarding the behavior of light in a dispersive medium. Since your question was nonsense, reflecting an abject lack of knowledge regarding the basic fundamentals of light and optics, it is about the best anyone could do (except you, of course - see below).

As with most of physics, understanding of the process comes with understanding of the math. The trivial example I provided as an illustration is an exceedingly small fraction of the math one must be comfortable with in order to understand " the process" as you call it.

As Gadianton alluded to upthread, mainstream scientific understanding of electromagnetics and optics has evolved, bringing humankind a long way since the days of whale oil lamps.

Have you forgotten that you were requested to provide us the answer to your own question using your special knowledge?

Let's hear it, Franktalk.

Seriously.