Does A Prism Imply The Existence Of An Aether Field

munty13 said:
Light travels through a prism does it not? We do not describe it simply as light moving towards my eye. We observe the journey that the light is making through the prism. It is this observation of the journey which reaches my eye.
Click to expand...

You can't see anything unless light comes from what you see and enters your eye. What's this "observation of a journey" idea you have?

If you see a beam of light passing through a prism, it is because some of the light is scattered out of the prism towards your eye. Take another example: laser beams. You can't see a laser beam at all unless there is dust in the air that scatters some of the light towards your eye.

Or, forget lasers and think about the light from a flashlight shone into the sky. Can you see the beam of the flashlight? If so, it is only because dust in the air is scattering some of the light out of the beam and towards your eye. Put smoke through the beam and you get more scattering and you see the beam more clearly. Shine the beam in a clean room and you won't see it at all until it hits a wall or object, in which case it is the wall or object scattering the light back to your eye.

There is no "observation of a journey". You only see light if it comes straight towards your eye and hits your retina.

I am implying that this is the exact same way we observe a rainbow.
Click to expand...

Do you see the problem with that idea now? You only see a rainbow if light comes from the rainbow and enters your eye. So, what happens in a rainbow? What happens is that light from the sun (always behind you, notice), hits water droplets in the air and is reflected by them back towards your eye.

In a rainbow, we are observing the colors of the visible spectrum as they make a journey around a circle.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You're watching light bounce through and off water droplets in front of you. The light travels in straight lines from the sun to the droplets, then back to your eye.

Surely, the circle has been magnified by a lens, and not created by one?
Click to expand...

What circle?
 
munty13 said:
Light travels through a prism does it not? We do not describe it simply as light moving towards my eye. We observe the journey that the light is making through the prism. It is this observation of the journey which reaches my eye.
I am implying that this is the exact same way we observe a rainbow.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong. Trace the ray path, and you should see it.

In a rainbow, we are observing the colors of the visible spectrum as they make a journey around a circle.
Click to expand...

No, no circle. Trace the rays, google it, but abandon your assertion, it's wrong.
 
James R said:
You can't see anything unless light comes from what you see and enters your eye. What's this "observation of a journey" idea you have?
Click to expand...

I understand that certain wavelengths of EMR stimulate my retina, but we observe the light in a prism do we not ? We observe the journey of the visible spectrum inside a prism.
 
munty13 said:
The picture reminds me of how at the edges of a magnifying lens, the light refracts, and you can catch glimpses of the visible spectrum.
Click to expand...

It also reminds me of gravitational lensing, sometimes known as an Einstein Rings. An imagined line from the observer and through the lens is known as the optical axis. If the souce is exactly aligned with the optical axis, a ring shape is formed, an Einstein Ring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yamVbK-J69M&feature=related
 
Ever looked at one of those fiber optic light fountains munty?

Notice how you can't see the light traveling along the fibre.
 
munty13 said:
I understand that certain wavelengths of EMR stimulate my retina, but we observe the light in a prism do we not ? We observe the journey of the visible spectrum inside a prism.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about certain wavelengths. Of course our eyes only see light in the visible part of the spectrum.

Did you read my post where I talked about laser beams and torch light? Did you understand it?
 
James R said:
Did you read my post where I talked about laser beams and torch light? Did you understand it?
Click to expand...

Maybe munty should go buy a laser pointer, play with it, and get back to us.

I recently bought a green laser, and that is bright enough, and scattered enough to be able to see the beam at night, which I find rather cool. It's on my desk, alongside my prism (I bought it on a whim from a science toy store). Maybe munty should go buy a prism too. Maybe munty should go take Physics 101.
 
phlogistician said:
Maybe munty should go buy a laser pointer, play with it, and get back to us.

I recently bought a green laser, and that is bright enough, and scattered enough to be able to see the beam at night, which I find rather cool. It's on my desk, alongside my prism (I bought it on a whim from a science toy store). Maybe munty should go buy a prism too. Maybe munty should go take Physics 101.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And perhaps he should just remain in school. As i said earlier, I suspect the "13" in his screen name is actually his age. If true, that means he's still a few years away from his FIRST introductory basic physics course.
 
Read-Only said:
I suspect the "13" in his screen name is actually his age. If true, that means he's still a few years away from his FIRST introductory basic physics course.
Click to expand...

What age do you start Science lessons in school over there (I'm presuming Munty is from the US)? We had basic science lessons from age 11, and distinct Chemistry, Physics, and Biology starting at 13. Most of the basic science was physics, establishing the basics of measuring, and tabulating results, and graphing them. By 15 we were handling radioactive sources, and doing cloud chamber experiments.
 
phlogistician said:
What age do you start Science lessons in school over there (I'm presuming Munty is from the US)? We had basic science lessons from age 11, and distinct Chemistry, Physics, and Biology starting at 13. Most of the basic science was physics, establishing the basics of measuring, and tabulating results, and graphing them. By 15 we were handling radioactive sources, and doing cloud chamber experiments.
Click to expand...

Hi, Philo,

It's pretty much the very same here.:) But things like light are a bit more advanced and you don't really get into the "why" of refraction, for example, until about age 16. You learn that refraction, reflection, etc. exist before that, but not about absorption and re-emission and all the really "neat" stuff until 16 or so.
 
I found this at Wiki:

"A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. They take the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outer part of the arch and violet on the inner section of the arch.

More rarely, a secondary rainbow is seen, which is a second, fainter arc, outside the primary arc, with colours in the opposite order, that is, with violet on the outside and red on the inside."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

Is the second bow telling us anything about the aether?
 
munty13 said:
I found this at Wiki:

"A rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that causes a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere. They take the form of a multicoloured arc, with red on the outer part of the arch and violet on the inner section of the arch.

More rarely, a secondary rainbow is seen, which is a second, fainter arc, outside the primary arc, with colours in the opposite order, that is, with violet on the outside and red on the inside."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

Is the second bow telling us anything about the aether?
Click to expand...

No, it certainly isn't because there IS no "aether." I can't possibly imagine why you keep on chasing this non-existent phantom! Seriously - have you NEVER heard of Michaelson and Morley???????? :bugeye: If not, I suggest you stop posting this nonsense until you've done a little research on their WORLD FAMOUS experiments!!!! (Nor were they the only ones to shoot the idea of aether down in burning flames.)
 
Is it mere coincidence that rainbows follow the same route as the Earth's magnetic field lines ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top