Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Ray...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Nicholas on November 5, 2002 21:18:40 UTC

"How can YOU state "Relativity" and "Superluminal" in the same breath? "

If you knew what I was talking about, you would know that superluminal motion is merely an astronomical illusion induced by relativistic effects.

"How can you POSSIBLY state that Black Holes are not causally connected to the rest of the universe? "

See my response to yaniru.

"They're both what I term "mathbabble", based upon what I term "Virtual Logic". It pops in and out of reality like your mathematically correct "Virtual
Particles".

Call it what you like, it still works. Call it virtual, real, fuzzy, evanescent, whatever, math describes our world with high precision. Your vague ramblings do not.

"According to your St. Einstein, exact descriptions can be given without recourse to math."

The difference is that Einstein had a mathematical basis to his theory. His descriptions were on solid ground because of that math. Your descriptions have no mathematical basis, at least not that you've provided.

"You people are Inflated buffoons to the educated people on the street."

The educated people on the street? So as soon as somebody gets too much education, they suddenly become a buffoon, whereas a little education makes one a genius? Is it possible that those with this extra education some extra perspective which you lack?

"What is responsible for the radial containment of a flashlight beam made of photon particles, in granular air?"

The edges of the flaslight. You'll notice that all flashlights have an extended edge in front of the bulb, giving it a cup-like shape. Thus, any light that doesn't come out roughly perpendicular to the bulb will be absorbed by the walls. The beam is not entirely contained, however, as you can see if you shine it on a distant wall. The bright spot will be bigger. The only perfectly contained beams of light are lasers. Anyway, the bulb of the light has a luminosity, L, and an area, A. The surface brightness of the bulb is just L/A. If you look at the bulb from an angle theta, it's brightness will be:

Flux = (L/A) * Aprime*cos(theta) / (4*pi*D^2)
= L*cos(theta) / (4*pi*D^2)

Aprime is the area that you can see from your vantage point. Because of the cup shape, much of this light will be absorbed unless you're looking right down the tube of the flashlight (i.e. theta of about pi/2). This effectively decreases Aprime and therefore the flux. The exact dependence of Aprime depends on the shape of the flashlight. Without the cup, the dependence would be a simply sinusoid.

There you have it. That doesn't require any physics, it's just geometry. The further out you extend the edges of the flashlight, the more collimation you'll get. I hope that's what you were looking for.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins