Thats probably because those users blocked you and im about to block you as well if you keep tagging me.
If you arent trying to learn, dont tag me.
Conversation
Notices
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 15:42:05 UTC 
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 15:54:51 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Alright, I will give you the benefit of the doubt then
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 16:06:28 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Thank you. I'd be happy to try to explain but first what do you mean by "informational carrying medium", I assume that you mean "a medium which can carry information", what would make you think air can not carry information? Sound of course has information and it traves through air.
As for the "frequencies you are radiating" air is not really the medium that carries the waves in this case (though it may move through air) but rather space-time. This can be seen by the fact that we can transmit radio signals through a vacuum, so air is not a required component to transmission.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 16:24:25 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Space is a field.
The issue is that you are trying to explain a fundemental object (a field) in terms of non-elementary objects.
Its a failing of human nature because those macroscopic things seem more real to us than the fundamental things. In reality it is the other way around.
All of space-time is a field and everthing we think of as objects are various types of perturbations in that field (waves).
So space-time is a field, it is the fundemental thing (not made up of things) and waves travel through it, which are little more than ripples in that field.
Are you a visual learner maybe? I can find some good educational videoa that can explain this to you graphically maybe it will help, there is also a talk with feynmann that is great... I will get them for you, please do watch them it will help answer your question
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 16:28:09 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
So ets start here where keynman explains what a magnetic field is "made" of... after you watch this i have a second link which will add more details about what space time itself:
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 16:31:37 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Watch the video i shared. space is made up of fields, the field is the fundamental elementary thing.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 16:32:18 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I linked the first of the videos here: https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8
Check it out then ill send you a second which actually address the space-time part
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 16:49:49 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Yes i know it doesnt answer the question. I shared it for a few reasons...
1) to explain that why is a question that goes infinitely deep and never ends. IT generally isnt useful when we start talking about fundemental forces
and
2) to explain to you that asking "what is the space time field made up of" is not the useful question. It is the fundemental thing (fields) and what you really should ask is what is everything else (air, water, etc) made up of (and ultimately you will arrive at the answer that it is fluctuations in the space-time fields)
I'll share a second video when i find it (im looking) that answers about spacetime specifically
But the important take away here is that you have 4 fundemental forces, and a few fundemental fields. These are what make up everything else, not the other way around.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 16:58:42 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I always just thought of it as a wave that interacts at a point. If someone really needs a physical real world analogy the pilot wave model is compelling in that regard.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 17:02:01 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Here i found the second video. Here they explain how fields are the fundemental constituent of space-time. Has a great visualization. I set the link up to take you to the part in the video where they cover this but if you have time watch the whole thing.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 17:07:14 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Again ether is the wrong term. You really mean "field" not "ether", it isnt made up of a substance thus ether is not appropeiate
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 17:13:02 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
No, if yu wish to see their follower list you can see it here: https://neckbeard.xyz/users/the_daily_comfy?tab=followers
What your seeing is normal, mastodon doesnt locally update follower lists right away.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 17:23:46 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
We can continue later if you wish.
But you have to understand what we mean when we say it isnt a substance and why we pick a different word, it has to do with the fact that it behaves differently.
If it were a substance than the speed of a wave through it would be relative to the substance it moves through. A wave in the ocean has a speed that is relative to the water. No matter how fast I am moving relative to that wave wont change this fact.
With space-time fields this is different, they are relative to the observer and not some medium
Think of the experiment which we used to disprove the Ether. Its like this, lets say i shoot a bullet at a target and it hits the bullseye. If the next time i shoot there is a cross-wind then the bullet wont hit its target anymore. The reason is because the bullet moves through a medium (air) and so if the air moves the bullet is carried along with that air.
But EM doesnt behave that way. If i shoot an EM wave at some target it will always travel in a straight line. If i shoot EM based gun at a target it doesnt matter how fast me and the target (in this case earth) is moving through space it always travels in a straight line. If it were moving through a substance then the EM field would "bend" as that substance flows.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 17:24:31 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I take it you just recently signed up.
Im the founder and admin of QOTO (A STEM based instance). Nice to meet you. Sounds like I'll be seeing you around in some STEM threads.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 20:04:52 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
We dont really enforce content in any sense. Generally we just care that people are respectful to others.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 21:04:00 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Gravitational lensing doesnt bend light, it bends the space time itself. Light still travels in a straight line.
But even that aside for a second (As that is a bit of a linguistic double-speak I admit) we arent talking about mass. We are talking about how the velocity of a spaceship shooting out lasers doesnt effect the speed or the direction at which lasers come out. Which would be effected if space-time were made of a substance like an ether, which it doesnt.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 21:11:26 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Did you manage to do the math exercise I gave you yet where you calculate the distance to horizon from the refractional index of the air and curve of the earth?
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 21:15:09 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Ahh yes, its very cool and a very common idea that physicists have shown. One of the fundamental properties of light is that it always travels in a straight path through space time.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 21:17:00 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Those arent pictures of the path light takes. Thus the bending your seeing is also not a bending of light. Those are cathode ray tubes. The paths you see is the path **electrons** take not light. They simply cause the gas to glow as they pass through it and then the gas emmits light (which is traveling in a straight line to your eyes).
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 21:32:58 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
If you need an example of what it looks like just go outside and look, thats a perfect example.
If you want to do the math itself, here is the post where I told you the math and how to calculate it when you posted your extremely **erroneous** math. I asked you to do the math again calculating in refractice index of the air.
Please do this and show your results so you can see why you were wrong. Here is the post where I include the equation for this:
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 21:38:16 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
No that is not what I said.
The path of the green beam you are seeing is **not** the path of light. The freen color your seeing is light.
If i light a lighter the flame glows. I presume you are educated enough to know the lighter isnt just spewing light out of the top, flames arent **made** of light, they simply **emit** light. That is what you are seeing there, light is being emited but the beam that creates it (And thus being bent) is an electron beam, not a light beam.
Just think about it, when you turn on a flashlight in a clear house with no fog, you dont see the light beam itself, but you do see the spotlight on the wall. Moreover if you put a magnet near a flaashlight the light spot it makes on the wall wont move or bed from the magnet.
It should be immediately obvious why, now, what you are seeing in that picture is not a magnet bending light.
This is also why i say you have to learn the basic math before you try to say things. Did you solve that equation i gave you earlier and a few minutes ago?
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 21:42:23 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
What part didnt you understand, I will step you through it. Remember we are trying to teach you here, so its important you attempt to work through the math yourself and we can correct it as you make mistakes. If you dont know how to do the math just ask and let me know what parts you dont understand and we can cover that.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 23-Nov-2019 22:38:14 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
The equation i gave has nothing to do with total internal reflection though. None of what you just said has any relationship to the equation you were asked to try to work on.
The light is not bouncing off a hard boundry , where it would create a reflection. IT is passing through a **gradient** where the refractive index is changing continuously, not abruptly.
This means it never gets reflected but rather just bends continuously.
I hope that clear it up. Are you now able to understand the equation and how to calculate it.
Can you do the math or do you need help now that I've explained?
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 09:48:43 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
How is the equation coming along for you. Have you had any success on working with it? If your stuck on the math please feel free to ask.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 15:19:06 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Its not an assumption, it is testable, and has been tested. Its the only reason fiberoptic cables are able to work as well as they do, they are built with these same properties and using the same equations.
Try not to blame your own ignorance or lack of understanding on well proven math. Just because you cant or arent willing to put in the time to understand something is no excuse for erroneously considering it to be wrong.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 15:29:23 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
As I told you before, do **not** tag me or speak with me in the future on topics of this nature unless you have a desire to learn and are willing to demonstrate that.
Its a waste of my time and simply not mentally healthy for you. So I wont be a party to it until you recognize that and want to change.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 15:45:46 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
We shall see, I hope he isnt that far gone, but we will see.
But I do agree that his unwillingness to attempt the equation largely stems from the fact that he does not have the education/knowledge to know how and because he is so insecure about being uneducated he would rather lash out at people than try to learn from them.
That is sad, I hope he realizes what he is doing one day. But for now I can just step away and pity him.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 16:29:14 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I will but the first step down that path is doing the math, once you showed you learned that then i can show you how to apply it to fiber optics and other real world uses.
I cant teach you what you wont learn.
So are you saying you are willing to try to solve the equation now so we can start proving things about it.
Sgow me the math on the equationI linked you twice now, then we can discuss.. Do you know how to do addition and multiplication? It wasnt a hard equation...
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 17:12:42 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
You are here to learn, you wont learn if other people have to do your math problems for you, you have to learn to do basic math if you want to understand this topic.
What part of the math dont you understand how to do? Is it adding? Is it multiplying? Is it how to determine the value of one of the variables in the equation?
What part, specificially, about the equation do you need to be helped with?
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Nov-2019 17:17:23 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
In case it helps you I attached a diagram showing the path of the beam of light through the gradient of the atmosphere.
Remember with glass the refractive index changes suddenly from air to glass. In the case of the atmosphere it changes **gradually** the higher up you go (due to the decreasing pressure). As a result of this the light continuously curves.
Now that you see the visual respresentation of how it works, again, attempt the equation, and if you dont know how, ASK, I will teach you whichever part you are confused on but you need to attempt the math so we have something to correct or learn from.
-
All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the