The motorists here tried to censor me again.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Albert T Cone on 6 Jul 2010 04:47 Norman Wells wrote: >>> If you say so. The fact that I understand it very well doesn't >>> come into it. >> >> How can you understand something that you claim does not exist? > > What is that 'something'? I've not denied that the eye can be confused > into seeing a retinal image of complementary colour when a coloured > bright light is suddenly switched off. That effect is well understood, > and the complementary colour of the sun as it sets is, oh, what a > surprise, green! Complementary colours depend on the colour model you are using. For the eye, the complementary colour to a sunset (red + green) is very much in the blue. >>> There is no proof whatsoever that it exists as anything other than a >>> retinal after-image, nor any sensible scientific explanation of how >>> it could possibly occur if it isn't. >> >> Well, other than a shitload of photographs, some experimental data and >> a huge number of eyewitnesses. >> >> http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/gf1.htm >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/greenflash.shtml >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A295300 > > The photos also show that the sun loses its circular outline and even > detaches its top. How strange that it knows to do this at the exact > moment it disappears from _our_ view. Has it singled us out > particularly to say goodbye? ?? I assume that you are being facetious. In all sunsets, there is some distortion of the disc. If you have an inversion layer, such you tend to get over the sea on a warm day, then you can indeed get multiple images formed. >> Sure. The idea that light can be refracted into different colours >> does indeed sound absurd. > > No, that's well proved. But, really, when you have to fiddle the theory > like this: > > "The red sun disappears first. Its light is refracted or bent least. The > yellows and oranges are absorbed by ozone and vanish, too. The > blues/indigos/violets should be last, but they get scattered by the > atmosphere (one of the reasons why the sky is blue) otherwise we would > see a blue flash. So the last piece of colour from the sun that the > watcher sees is the surviving emerald green" They are simply referring to the fact that most of the scatterers in the atmosphere are within the Rayleigh regime and so the scattering of light is strongly wavelength dependent (~wavelength^4). This is also a 'well proved' (sic) effect. Combined with dispersion in (rare but observed) strong inversion layers, the source of the green flash is explained quite credibly. There is no 'fiddling' of the theory, as far as I can see.
From: Cynic on 6 Jul 2010 08:14 On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:28:22 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>Actually electricity will pass through anything if you make the voltage >>>high enough. >>No it will not. >Err yes it will my friend. How do you think lightning manages to pass through >wood in trees and solid rock? You think that if it can pass through wood and rock that is proof that it can pass through anything? Strange scientific method you employ. A living tree is not, of course, an insulator. It contains ionised water throughout and will readily pass an electric current. Dry wood has a very high resistance, but I would not class it as an insulator except when speaking relatively. An insulator will not conduct electricity at all until the EMF is sufficient to alter the molecular structure of the material. It then "breaks down" and a current will flow *through the newly created material*. Often the heating effect of that current will cause other chemical changes to the material. >>>Oh , riiiiight. Now it only has a memory for *some* materials. And which >>>would these happen to be then? Have the homeopathic quacks got a table >>>substances that the effect works on? >>It is yourself who is so certain that any such effect must be >>universal, so obviously you have a far better insight as to what >>principles are at work (or not) than I am able to supply. >You're making the claims for homeopathy, you back them up. I have made no claims whatsoever. It is *you* who is making the claim that any such effect is impossible, while I am simply saying that I do not know for certain one way or the other. -- Cynic
From: boltar2003 on 6 Jul 2010 09:45 On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:14:21 +0100 Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:28:22 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world >wrote: > >>>>Actually electricity will pass through anything if you make the voltage >>>>high enough. > >>>No it will not. > >>Err yes it will my friend. How do you think lightning manages to pass through >>wood in trees and solid rock? > >You think that if it can pass through wood and rock that is proof that >it can pass through anything? Strange scientific method you employ. It can pass through any sort of matter that has electrons in it yes. >A living tree is not, of course, an insulator. It contains ionised >water throughout and will readily pass an electric current. Dry wood Ionised wood?????? ROTFLMAO!! Now I've heard it all! :) >An insulator will not conduct electricity at all until the EMF is >sufficient to alter the molecular structure of the material. It then Next time you get an electric shock from a nylon carpet have a long think about which part of its molecular structure was altered. Yes , some materials heat up and break down before they start to conduct but its not a requirement. They'd end up conducting anyway. B2003
From: Cynic on 6 Jul 2010 11:32 On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:45:50 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>Err yes it will my friend. How do you think lightning manages to pass through >>>wood in trees and solid rock? >>You think that if it can pass through wood and rock that is proof that >>it can pass through anything? Strange scientific method you employ. >It can pass through any sort of matter that has electrons in it yes. >>A living tree is not, of course, an insulator. It contains ionised >>water throughout and will readily pass an electric current. Dry wood >Ionised wood?????? No, ionised water. Or more precisely, water that contains ions. Try reading more slowly. The water in the wood contains ions of dissolved substances which is why it passes a current of electricity (the ions move rather than only electrons). Salts, acids and alkalies all produce ions when dissolved in water. Non-ionised water (such as distilled water) is an insulator (To be pedantic, pure water contains a very low concentration of H3O+ and OH- ions that each exist for fractions of a second). >ROTFLMAO!! >Now I've heard it all! :) Then perhaps you should educate yourself rather than maintaining the closed mind that is so often the hallmark of an ignorant person. Here's a short piece that may not be beyond your attention span and yet contains some facts about water that you are so obviously ignorant. It might even provide the basis of a possible mechanism whereby water might retain a "memory" of things that were once dissolved in it. Water is a pretty complex substance. http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk/science/chemistry/perturbation-of-water-structure-by-dissolved-ions-8338.html Quote: Most naturally occurring water has ions (charged atoms) dissolved in it. Whilst there is plenty of information available about how ions in solution strongly orientate the water molecules that hydrate them, there is surprising paucity of information and controversy about how water structure itself (the relative arrangement of one water molecule to another) is affected by the presence of dissolved ions. In pure water this arrangement has a �tetrahedral� structure, giving water the characteristic of a disordered network of hydrogen bonded molecules. Using a series of neutron diffraction experiments on Sandals with hydrogen/deuterium substitution, the structure of water in a number of ionic solutions and over a range of concentrations was investigated. With increased concentration, the first shell of water molecules around a central molecule remains largely intact, but the second shell collapses inwards (see figure), as in pure water under pressure. This behaviour is thought to be due to the �electrostriction� of the ions pulling water molecules closer together on average. /Quote >>An insulator will not conduct electricity at all until the EMF is >>sufficient to alter the molecular structure of the material. It then >Next time you get an electric shock from a nylon carpet have a long think >about which part of its molecular structure was altered. Perhaps *you* should have a long think about whether the nylon is *conducting* electricity. If it *did* conduct electricity it would not create a triboelectric buildup of static charge. >Yes , some materials heat up and break down before they start to conduct but >its not a requirement. They'd end up conducting anyway. For many insulators it is definitely a requirement. No breakdown = no current flow. -- Cynic
From: Derek Geldard on 6 Jul 2010 11:37
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:35:05 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >>>Actually electricity will pass through anything if you make the voltage >>>high enough. >>What about an absolute vacuum ? > >You think electrons can't traverse a vacuum? > How do you think a cathode ray tube works you dolt. > By what process does this happen ? >>> It just happens to pass easiest through metals at the voltages >>>we normally work with. >>> >> >>Say what you mean by "Pass through" ? > >You work it out. > >B2003B2003 Derek |