Yahoo Clever wird am 4. Mai 2021 (Eastern Time, Zeitzone US-Ostküste) eingestellt. Ab dem 20. April 2021 (Eastern Time) ist die Website von Yahoo Clever nur noch im reinen Lesemodus verfügbar. Andere Yahoo Produkte oder Dienste oder Ihr Yahoo Account sind von diesen Änderungen nicht betroffen. Auf dieser Hilfeseite finden Sie weitere Informationen zur Einstellung von Yahoo Clever und dazu, wie Sie Ihre Daten herunterladen.
How does coherent light travel between stars?
It can easily be demonstrated that coherent light does not travel between stars. Look at the night sky – it is black – a dead giveaway if you know anything about wave physics. For everything we know about light, stars would appear as smudges after traveling that far. We also see stars so far away that their light energy should not reach us with any significant intensity, let alone being visible to our eyes. Galaxies are crystal clear, yet the light reflected from Pluto reveals a mottled image that has far less resolution with our best telescopes.
So, we cannot see Pluto with any clarity, AND light supposedly comes from stars – especially individual stars in distant galaxies, to us as coherent light: these are two statements of fact that together have no merit whatsoever, let alone being the basis for astrophysics. We can ‘see’ the starlight which has most of the properties of coherent light, and there is no need to investigate further unless you know something about wave physics.
Bring me a good photo of Pluto with enough resolution to equate with being able to detect planets 200 light years away or read Chapter Six, linked below.
My question is, “How is it that the entire community of astrophysicists must each stumble over this rationalization, yet in the last century of advanced physics, nobody has called the question – until me?”
Erica: it is clear that you are educated to a point that is well beyond your grasp. The evidence for everything on the site is much better substantiated than what you call science. My writing style is for a young and mentally agile person, so it may look different than you might expect. Thumb down your closed mind. Yahoouse… I play where I wish, and this is play for me to do this while I work at the state-of-the-art in the application of physics and have done so for the past twenty years. Lodar: No buy on the angular angle – that whole process is a contrivance meant to justify a failed model. To see individual stars in some of the farther galaxies, we should be able to read a newspaper on Pluto. If you had opted for direct light vs. reflected light (gave you the opening, did I?), you had a chance. John W.: Coherent light has a larger definition than applied to lasers, and the accent here is that the source of light from that far away – if it were something silly like a waveform, they w
(continued) they would have had 200 million years to interfere as they may wont, so interference is virtually zero. Information that travels that long is coherent by definition. BTW, I mastered laser principles in eighth grade, which was in the 1960’s.
You all have missed the obvious because your education is so limited. Your astrophysics model is worthless when held to even the lowest level of scrutiny. You sell it only because that’s all you have been handed. Others are way ahead – you are actually six years behind your reality.
Erica (my ego can’t resist): I expect to receive a certain prize for my showing of how and my defining of why every and all experimental events observed to date on Earth which involve a photon are a derivative of the Sun’s gravity. That means that all of your data on which you model the universe which uses a photon, is not valid beyond the outer radii of our comets.
Lodar: AGAIN, we are not talking about your silly math about galaxies... do the same trig for one of the stars in that far galaxy. We can see that star as an independent entity, so arguments about galaxies are really stupid and divisive - which is my point. You demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about by using this impropriety as a propped-up truth, which is what can be expected of the limits of your education.
Erica: Oh my, please reread your content and ask who is the ranter? Who flails and rails against disagreement? Your issue is that you do not know yourself, have any confidence whatsoever in who you are. That's about as close to a reactionary rant as I will get. Have a nice day.
Erica: Oh my, please reread your content and ask who is the ranter? Who flails and rails against disagreement? Your issue is that you do not know yourself, have any confidence whatsoever in who you are. That's about as close to a reactionary rant as I will get. Have a nice day.
Ummmm, that was supposed to go once, but Yahoo! had a hiccup. Sorry. BTW, thanks Lodar for the 'genius' label. Its good to know you agree with most.
Lodar: Upon reflection, I realize that YOU represented that distant galaxy as ONE ENTITY.
IF you can model that galaxy as having the optical properties that unifies it to present to us in detail, then lay on. IF NOT, then you just validated my model. My contention is that any attempt to excuse the visibility of individual stars in that galaxy are based in my model of gravity because electromagnetic entities do not have the legs to provide detail at these distances – the classic conundrum. I contend that any attempt to rationalize our vision of these stars as based on electromagnetics is doomed by quanta values.
That's it? You guys were easy on me, except of course, Erica. Yous have a choice - re-read Millennial Physics enough times to understand it or retire from physics. Grasp Black Holes as a significant tool with which to model Event Horizon physics - it leads to understanding time. Gravitational Induction Pumping (with a special wink to John W.) is a glimpse at stuff y'all haven't even looked at.
It is irrelevant if you as individuals agree with my model or if you run around with stakes in your hand (I loved that), this model is, at least in part, the future.
Considering that it is a re-write of the foundation of all the physical sciences, I expect the teeth gnashing (like our dear Erica's here) to continue for years. The result is worth the battle.
The best part is that the work is done - all that's left is the 'shouting', which is showing itself to be much easier than I thought. Thanks for the encouragement!
8 Antworten
- ?Lv 7vor 9 JahrenBeste Antwort
Just to put a few of your arguments to rest by way of a stake through their heart, we can see galaxies clearly but only a blurry picture of Pluto because galaxies have a much greater angular diameter as seen from earth, even though galaxies are much farther away. That's because they are so much bigger, by the way. Secondly, planets around other stars are not detected by imaging them. We use either the Doppler method, or by measuring the star's brightness as it is periodically transited by those planets.
Edit --------------------------------------
OK genius, since you're so unconvinced, let's do some math. Do you know simple trig? Pluto's diameter is 2,306 km. It is 5,874,000,000 km away on average. The angular diameter is given by ARCTAN(2,306 / 5,874,000,000) which is .081 arc seconds. Now let's compare that to our own galaxy at the farthest possible distance in the universe: 14 billion light years. Its diameter is 100,000 light years, so doing the same problem results in 1.47 arc seconds. That's 18 times the angular diameter, which is 330 times the viewing area, even for the farthest possible galaxy. One of the closest galaxies, Andromeda, has an angular diameter of over 3 whole degrees, 150,000 times larger than tiny Pluto. Now I suppose you have some other silly argument grounded in no facts to further counter this.
- John WLv 7vor 9 Jahren
You do realize that coherent light is when all the frequencies are in phase with each other such as in a laser beam. The light from stars are not coherent to begin with.
We don't actually see extrasolar planets, we see the stars the orbit dim slightly when the planet passes in front or we see the star wobble if the planet is going around the star from our perspective. The doppler frequency shifts of the star also indicate the wobble if we are in the same plane as the planets orbits and can not see the wobble directly.
It would appear that you've been missing a few basic classes in school.
- vor 5 Jahren
If as you say there is not any light journeying through space, what are we seeing when we appear at the sky after darkish on a clear night?... The human eye is not the most touchy gentle detection procedure, but it's equipped beneath ultimate conditions of perceiving a single photon occasion. And as for claiming that we can simply unravel character stars in distant galaxies with a 3" telescope, i've on no account found an astronomer who would declare that was once feasible (what are they doing constructing eight metre 'scopes with energetic optics for?) I advocate that you simply put up your thought in a professional astronomy/astrophysics journal and then we'll see if there may be something to it....
- Erica sLv 7vor 9 Jahren
You clearly have only a tenuous grasp on physics, but a pretty good grasp on your own ego. You seem also not to understand wave/particle duality. I have had a glance at your website, but it is as meaningless as your rant here and I suggest you spend less time on site development and more on real science. I fully expect your thumbs down as soon as you read my answer.
Edited after reading the askers reply
My remarks regarding your ego are born out by your subsequent rant at any real scientist who disagrees with you. Your claims notwithstanding, your idea of physics is laughable.
- Wie finden Sie die Antworten? Melden Sie sich an, um über die Antwort abzustimmen.
- Anonymvor 9 Jahren
You are an uneducated imbecile with NO grasp of Physics.
Go play somewhere else.
- vor 9 Jahren
The heat from earth makes a star seem like it wobbles but it's like if u had a light in a dark tunnel that bends so would the light
- bookaLv 4vor 9 Jahren
Ummm huh?... I love these situations in astrophysics but I don't understand what your asking or answering to a point
- Anonymvor 9 Jahren
Coherent?
