Light stopped in its tracks.
S D Rodent
January 18, 2001
Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold
It, Then Send It on Its Way
By JAMES GLANZ
Researchers say they have
slowed light to a dead stop,
stored it and then released it as if it
were an ordinary material particle.
To quote S D Rodrian:
http://web.sdrodrian.com
"... In reality what they did
was to "pressure" the photon
into such proximity with the
gas atoms that they were
captured gravitationally: This
is a way of saying that the atoms
(which are the ones that are really
"moving" at the speed of light (not
the photons) "grabbed" the photons
and dragged them along (which
speeding up of the photon to "our"
greater speed we naturally interpret
as "slowing down" to "our" state of
"motionlessness." If, as incorrectly
described in the article, the photon
would have really been brought to
a "stop" it would have: 1) not stopped
relative to us, of course, because we
(the universe's ordinary matter) are
always in perpetual relative motion,
and this means for all practical purposes
that the "stopped" photon is ALSO
being "dragged about all over the place"
along with us to make it seem to be at
rest relative to us. [Again confirming my
proposal that the photon "only" "moves"
in a straight trajectory relative to the
rest of the universe (i.e. ... a trajectory
determined by gravity), but also reaffirms
Einstein's already proved proposal that
a strong-enough gravitational field will
"grab" the photon as well (if not as
"much") as it will grab any of the other
particles of ordinary matter.] And, 2) the
fact that a "man-made box" can drag a
photon about as readily as it can "carry
in it" any other article... illustrates better
than any other presentation could: not only
that it IS the "box" that is "moving" and
NOT the photon, but that the photon is NOT
merely "vibrating" (traveling "back & forth"
and therefore simply taking a longer path)
still at the speed of light but is actually
"captured" [energy=motion, therefore its
energy is being conserved IN "motions" which
have been "written] into" the captivating
atoms... in an analogous fashion not all
that much different from a body captured in
orbit (e.g. the addition/conservation of
energy/motion/mass." --SDR
The achievement is a landmark
feat that, by reining in nature's
swiftest and most ethereal form of
energy for the first time, could help
realize what are now theoretical
concepts for vastly increasing the
speed of computers and the
security of communications.
Two independent teams of
physicists have achieved the result,
one led by Dr. Lene Vestergaard
Hau of Harvard University and the
Rowland Institute for Science in
Cambridge, Mass., and the other
by Dr. Ronald L. Walsworth and
Dr. Mikhail D. Lukin of the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics, also in Cambridge.
Light normally moves through
space at 186,000 miles a second.
Ordinary transparent media like
water, glass and crystal slow light
slightly, an effect that causes the
bending of light rays that allows
lenses to focus images and prisms
to produce spectra.
Using a distantly related but much
more powerful effect, the
Walsworth-Lukin team first
slowed and then stopped the light
in a medium that consisted of
specially prepared containers of
gas. In this medium, the light
became fainter and fainter as it
slowed and then stopped. By
flashing a second light through the
gas, the team could essentially
revive the original beam.
The beam then left the chamber
carrying nearly the same shape,
intensity and other properties it had when
it entered. The experiments led by Dr. Hau
achieved similar results with
closely related techniques.
"Essentially, the light becomes stuck in
the medium, and it can't get out
until the experimenters say so," said
Dr. Seth Lloyd, an associate
professor of mechanical engineering
at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology who is familiar with the work.
Dr. Lloyd added, "Who ever thought that
you could make light stand still?"
He said the work's biggest impact could
come in futuristic technologies
called quantum computing and quantum
communication. Both concepts
rely heavily on the ability of light
to carry so-called quantum information,
involving particles that can exist in
many places or states at once.
Quantum computers could crank through
certain operations vastly faster
than existing machines; quantum
commmunications could never be
eavesdropped upon. For both these
systems, light is needed to form
large networks of computers. But
those connections are difficult without
temporary storage of light, a problem
that the new work could help solve.
A paper by Dr. Walsworth, Dr. Lukin
and three collaborators — Dr. David Phillips,
Annet Fleischhauer and Dr. Alois Mair, all at
Harvard-Smithsonian — is scheduled to appear
in the Jan. 29 issue of Physical Review Letters.
Citing restrictions imposed by the
journal Nature, where her report is to
appear, Dr. Hau refused to discuss
her work in detail.
Two years ago, however, Nature
published Dr. Hau's description of
work in which she slowed light to
about 38 miles an hour in a system
involving beams of light shone
through a chilled sodium gas.
Dr. Walsworth and Dr. Lukin mentioned
Dr. Hau's new work in their
paper, saying she achieved her latest
results using a similarly chilled gas.
Dr. Lukin cited her earlier work, which
Dr. Hau produced in collaboration with
Dr. Stephen Harris of Stanford University, as the
inspiration for the new experiments.
Those experiments take the next step,
stopping the light's propagation completely.
"We've been able to hold it there and
just let it go, and what comes out is
the same as what we sent in," Dr. Walsworth
said. "So it's like a freeze frame."
Dr. Walsworth, Dr. Lukin and their team
slowed light in a gas form of
rubidium, an alkaline metal element.
The deceleration of the light in the rubidium
differed in several ways from
how light slows through an ordinary lens.
For one thing, the light dimmed
as it slowed through the rubidium.
Another change involved the behavior
of atoms in the gas, which
developed a sort of impression of
the slowing wave.
This impression, actually consisting of
patterns in a property of the atoms
called their spin, was a kind of record
of the light's passing and was
enough to allow the experimenters to
revive or reconstitute the original beam.
Both Dr. Hau's original experiments
on slowing light, and the new ones
on stopping it, rely on a complex
phenomenon in certain gases called
electromagnetically induced
transparency, or E.I.T.
This property allows certain gases, like
rubidium, that are normally
opaque to become transparent
when specially treated.
For example, rubidium would normally
absorb the dark red laser light
used by Dr. Walsworth and his colleagues,
because rubidium atoms are
easily excited by the frequency of that light.
But by shining a second laser, with a slightly
different frequency, through
the gas, the researchers rendered it transparent.
The reason is that the two lasers create
the sort of "beat frequency" that occurs when
two tuning forks simultaneously
sound slightly different notes.
The gas does not easily absorb that
frequency, so it allows the light to
pass through it; that is, the gas
becomes transparent.
But another property of the atoms, called
their spin, is still sensitive to the
new frequency. Atoms do not actually
spin but the property is a quantum-mechanical
effect analagous to a tiny bar magnet that can be
twisted by the light.
As the light passes through, it alters
those spins, in effect flipping them.
Though the gas remains transparent,
the interaction serves as a friction or
weight on the light, slowing it.
"This language makes it difficult
to avoid envisioning a wave writing
on the sand (from which impression
one would then "recreate" the wave)."
Using that technique, Dr. Hau and Dr. Harris
in the earlier experiment slowed light to
a crawl. But they could not stop it, because the
transparent "window" in the gas became
increasingly narrower, and more
difficult to pass through, as the light
moved slower and slower.
In a recent theoretical advance,
Dr. Lukin, with Dr. Suzanne Yelin of
Harvard-Smithsonian and Dr. Michael
Fleischhauer of the University of
Kaiserslautern in Germany, discovered
a way around this constraint.
They suggested waiting for the beam
to enter the gas container, then smoothly
reducing the intensity of the second beam.
The three physicists calculated that this
procedure would narrow the window, slowing
the first beam, but also "tune" the system so
that the beam always passes through.
The first beam, they theorized, should slow
to an infinitesimally slow speed, finally present
only as an imprint on the spins, with no visible light
remaining. Turning the second beam back on,
they speculated, should reconstitute the first beam.
The new experiments bore those ideas out.
"The light is actually brought to a stop
and stored completely in the atoms," Dr. Harris said.
"There's no other way to do that. It's been done
— done very convincingly, and beautifully."
The FBI
Washington AC
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
ste...@iea.com (Steve McGrew) wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:12:10 GMT, S D Rodent <the...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > To quote S D Rodrian:
> > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > "... In reality what they did
> > was to "pressure" the photon
> > into such proximity with the
> > gas atoms that they were
> > captured gravitationally: This
> > is a way of saying that the atoms
> > (which are the ones that are really
> > "moving" at the speed of light (not
> > the photons) "grabbed" the photons
> > and dragged them along (which
> > speeding up of the photon to "our"
> > greater speed we naturally interpret
> > as "slowing down" to "our" state of
> > "motionlessness."
>
>
> Unfortunately, this is a prime example
> of pseudoscientific BS!
Much more unfortunate still is the fact that
without any understanding whatsoever of what
is being discussed (evidenced by the above critic's
inability to express/cite ANY proof/argument against
the position of the original statement--and ignoring
that gravity is the ONLY force in effect in the
universe, with the other "three forces" merely being
different quantitative/qualitative aspects of it)...
expert-witness-wanna-bes like the critic above intrude
upon all discussions merely to throw in a haughty: "No
it's not!" (Apparently hoping to get everybody mired
in one of their, "No it's not--Yes it is" theater of the
absurd fracas.
> Gravitation has absolutely nothing to do
> with the experiment or the
> observed effect.
No, of course not! It was carried out [sarcasm]
on another dimension altogether (one
completely devoid of gravitational effects
... naturally, by massless researchers).
> If you want to understand the experiments,
> read the original papers.
Sir: Read the article yourself (it's included in
the original post in its entirety, forGodsSakes).
> Don't believe *anything* you get from the Web or
> from a newsgroup.
> Steve
Well, your categorical rejection of one
rather common source of knowledge
suggests it may not be the only source (of
knowledge) you probably reject out-of-hand.
Perhaps the probability that you are not
confident enough of what you (think you) know
--of the truth-- makes you afraid that you'll
be blinded by any lie you cannot shine "your
truth" on. I cannot tell either way; but it
does very strongly suggest that IF you had known
what argument to make against it... you'd have
made it. You did not, instead choosing to just
cry out: "T'aint so!" And then running away
as fast as you could.
Look: On the outside chance that you do not
understand that gravity is all there is to our
universe... I would be most glad to inform you on
the evolution of the universe. This is not yet
taught in the classrooms of physics, because
the Beagle hath not yet brought back the monkeys
from the stars.
Kindly,
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
"tinytess" <tinyte...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> remotely interesting...but whats your point?
That the universe (reality) hath
a natural explanation. Does the matter
interest you further?
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
> S D Rodent <the...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:9487lo$c9t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > From The New York Times:
> > January 18, 2001
> >
> > Scientists Bring Light to Full Stop, Hold
> > It, Then Send It on Its Way
> >
> > By JAMES GLANZ
> >
> > Researchers say they have
> > slowed light to a dead stop,
> > stored it and then released it as if it
> > were an ordinary material particle.
> >
> > To quote S D Rodrian:
> > http://web.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > "... In reality what they did
> > was to "pressure" the photon
> > into such proximity with the
> > gas atoms that they were
> > captured gravitationally: This
> > is a way of saying that the atoms
> > (which are the ones that are really
> > "moving" at the speed of light (not
> > the photons) "grabbed" the photons
> > and dragged them along (which
> > speeding up of the photon to "our"
> > greater speed we naturally interpret
> > as "slowing down" to "our" state of
> > and three collaborators - Dr. David Phillips,
> > Annet Fleischhauer and Dr. Alois Mair, all at
> > Harvard-Smithsonian - is scheduled to appear
> > - done very convincingly, and beautifully."
> >
> >
> > The FBI
> > Washington AC
> >
> >
> >
> >
S D Rodrian
"Ool" <ulrich.sc...@t-online.de> wrote:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:9505g9$upv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <94t2ni$dsn$00$1...@news.t-online.com>,> > news:9487a4$bu8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > > To quote S D Rodrian:
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
>
> > > > "... In reality what they did
> > > > was to "pressure" the photon
> > > > into such proximity with the
> > > > gas atoms that they were
> > > > captured gravitationally:
>
>
> > > Wouldn't that make the atom a black hole?
>
> > Dear Erm... NOR will the collapsing Sun
> > become a black hole some 4.8 billion years from now:
> > It just doesn't have enough of what it takes.
>
> No, what I meant was: Wouldn't
> something have to be a black hole in
> order to be able to stop
> light dead *gravitationally?*
Again: Nor do you need white bread to spread
peanut butter: The reason "light" cannot escape
from a black hole is because it is "pulled" by
gravity--So, therefore, ANY gravity that "pulls"
hard enough on "light" will stop it. [You don't
need a black hole to "stop light" ... all you need
is "its" same-strength force of gravity: If you're
familiar with Newton's laws of gravitation, well
then you might've heard that as the distance
between two bodies increases, the strength of
gravity between them is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance (e.g. the surface
area of a sphere is directly proportional to the
square of its radius... so that if a sphere has 3
times the radius of another sphere, it has nine
times the surface area). Basically, what all this
solid geometry-speak boils down to, gravitationally-
speaking, is that, in proportion to their sizes, two
larger spheres are "closer" to each other than two
smaller spheres when they're standing an absolutely
fixed distance from each other (such as "one inch")
because gravity is much more "interested in" the
proximity of their surface areas than in their size.]
This neatly resolves the matter of what folk have
traditionally defined as "forces other than gravity."
And explains why the "theoretical" microscopic
black hole (one infinitesimally tiny or so) might
in all probability pass right through the entire length
of our otherwise very solid planet and emerge without
ever having so much as "sucked in" a single one of
our planet's atoms: It just could never get close
enough to ANY of them to interact gravitationally
with it (especially if it's passing by REALLY fast).
> The other explanation elsewhere in
> the thread--that the energy state
> is merely captured in the electrons' spin
> and then re-released at ex-
> actly the same wavelength in
> the same direction it would have taken
> before (in relation to the material
> that it was captured in if I got
> that right)--made more sense.
Kudos to you then, if you managed to understand
"the correct explanation" without my elucidation
(as Jesse Jackson might say): I am merely giving
THE fundamental reason behind the superficial
descriptions offered by the researchers who
accomplished the marvelous feat... more often than
not there is yet a much profounder truth behind the
truths that glitter.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
S D Rodrian
"Police Box" <poli...@win.bright.net> wrote:
> I think you missed a fundamental point.
Perhaps I had too much caffeine that day.
> Having enough gravity to stop light
> is the definition of a black hole!
Then my blanket's a black hole (since
I can get dark & cozy under there
even when the lights are blazing in my room).
> You have mistakenly extrapolated
> Newton's gravity inside the object generating it.
Hot dog! That means I've finally gotten
inside the matter.
> As you move inside the
> object, the inverse square relation ceases
> to hold. The singularity that
> you would expect from the inverse square rule
> never happens. It just kind
> of rounds itself off.
That only happens with a singularity that ALSO
HAPPENS TO BE a wino. For all other sources
of gravity... Newton's law of greater proximity
equaling greater gravitational strength holds:
If you're going to come as close to an atom nucleus
as does an electron, then you had better be moving
at fast as electrons move... because the gravitational
strength "that close" to the nucleus is so strong
they actually refer to it as "the strong" force.
Albeit, it is true that one would expect the absolute
center of (a black hole?) to be rather devoid of any
gravitational strength--as gravity is canceled/neutralized
by the surrounding "matter" [and this is precisely what
we see in/of our universe of matter--which lies at just
or near such a center of an imploding "singularity" --i.e.
the universe of matter itself: the relatively "weak"
strength of gravity which makes galaxies et al possible
in our portion/regions of the universe must mean that "we"
are nearer the edge of the galactic universe than nearer
its center... but still "inside" that "disk" of the universe
in which gravity must be extremely powerful].
If you look at our cosmos, or even at your coiffure, you
will notice just how weak IS the force of gravity "here"
at the "center" of the universe's imploding singularity of
matter (or, more correctly near the inner edge of its
thickest accretion disk). Moreover, at the absolute center
of the universe of matter I expect to find absolutely nothing
(as the forms of matter, or the energy/motion in/of them)
literally unwind/unravel and return everything which was once
material ... into non-matter Absolute Rest).
re:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:951e98$rdt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> [...SNIP!...]
> > So, therefore, ANY gravity that "pulls"
> >hard enough on "light" will stop it. [You don't
> >need a black hole to "stop light" ... all you need
> >is "its" same-strength force of gravity:
> [...SNIP!...]
S D Rodrian
"Rex" <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "JHS" <john.s...@BINntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3A7A03FC...@BINntlworld.com...
> >
> > S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with your imploding Universe.
Well, you're in good company: My 97-year-old
grandfather also disagreed with it (as well as with
any notion that people had walked on the moon; AND
try as we might we could never convince him that
the world was a ball hanging out in the middle of
emptiness near'bout as far as Hercules could shot-put
a cat).
> > See my post 'exploding the big bang'
> > on the a.s.p.new-theories.
> > JHS
>
> Actually, what destroy's his theory of an imploding Universe
... is your superstition that it's been destroyed?
> is the problem of temperature. As matter becomes more
> dense, temperature increases. As matter becomes less
> dense, temperature decreases. The temperature of the
> Universe is decreasing.
Well, we'll just leave the matter of hydrogen-burning
stars vs helium-burning stars aside for the moment.
Concentrate on this: Only atomic particles engage in
fusion/fission nuclear processes; gravity does not.
[Once atomic particles are ripped apart/asunder inside
a black hole, for example, the question of "temperature"
becomes moot--Since there "probably" are no particles,
as we know of them, inside a super-massive black hole:
it's likely that super-massive "coldness" is the order
of the day inside it.] "Energy is motion/motion energy"
means that "friction" plays no role with respect to energy
[and this is the old conundrum faced by our limited
human understanding... where it is nearly impossible
for us to conceive of motion WITHOUT some "thing"
(material, or "made of matter") moving]. But once
energy winds up [no pun intended] in/as.into "matter"
(or what we call particles), then those particles CAN
rub up against each other the wrong way and produce
friction--the level of which IS in direct proportion
to the level of energy/motion of which the rubbing
particles are composed (and it really doesn't matter
what form this "friction" takes, nuclear, chemical, or
rubbing your hands together--the important thing is
that "particles" rub up against each other).
So just keep in mind that "gravity is a force is energy
is motion." And that "matter" is a super-construct of
gravitational sub-systems extending down to such depths
of lower and lower levels that all distinctions between
motion and moving "things" become meaningless (in strictly
human terms).
> However, from what little I have read of his theory, he
> claims that matter is "shrinking" not becoming denser.
> How this "shrinking" is achieved, I have no idea.
Well, I do hate to sum it up in a few words because
then so many persons out there come back saying that
I provide no proofs of my "claims." But, in any case,
here's a brief summation of "the whys" ...
1) Look at what is unquestionably possible (under the
laws of physics) and what is clearly NOT possible.
1) Everywhere you have matter... it tends to move
toward itself and NEVER away from itself [e.g.
it's not even necessary to explain why the universe
is imploding... while it would require a very
concrete and inevitable/irrefutable reason to explain
why the universe would be exploding/expanding]. And
the "only" such explanation so far advanced for an
expanding universe is the apparent recession of the
galaxies from each other (a "trick" which "absolutely"
contradicts what the laws of physics tell us matter
does and does not do).
2) Therefore... the galaxies "absolutely" CAN NOT be
receding from each other (but must be doing something
which makes it appear as if that's what they're doing;
and, not coincidentally, many effects can be both
absolutely false at the same time they are true
relativistically)... in an imploding universe: While
the universe is absolutely imploding, the galaxies ARE
relativistically receding from each other: Nothing here
contradicts the laws of physics... because it's just so
darn easy to visualize (put all the pieces together of)
exactly what's going on:
1) The universe is imploding, therefore
2) The forms of matter CAN NOT be fundamental
otherwise we would be witnessing fusion/fission.
3) Therefore, the forms of matter MUST be shrinking
(and since there are NO fundamental "particles"
there can NOT be any "one thing" that's shrinking
but it must be a shrinking towards/at every
possible\imaginable coordinate in the universe).
1) The result is that the universe retains
its overall "form/shape" as it shrinks
(since it doesn't collapse towards center
as does the usual collapsing star).
2) If the forms of matter are NOT fundamental
then they are NOT becoming denser and denser
(and, if E=MC^2, then energy must be something
which can unwind as easily as it winds up
... into matter. Or, "motion" (because all the
energy we know of IS\or is in one or another
form of motion).
1) Energy is motion, matter is what's moving.
1) If you unravel matter, it will eventually
boil down to motion (less and less motion,
obviously, is getting closer/closer to
absolute rest).
1) Absolute rest is a perfect description
of the universe of energy which gave
birth to the universe of matter. And
2) ... down, down, down into absolute rest
are all the motions of (that are) "matter"
headed.
2) And, how does anyone arrive at such a conclusion? Well,
you don't have to be a magnificent thinker to know that
when a magician pulls an elephant out of his hat... it's
a trick (and illusion) and that he REALLY didn't do any
such a thing). And the same holds for all other similar
events which might "seem" physically unlikely to be true:
1) The matter of whether they ARE true or are NOT true
can also be resolved (without knowing how the magician
manages his trick, but) by whether or not the "trick"
goes against the laws of physics or not.
1) Then you ought to understand a couple of very
basic facts:
1) None of the forms of matter are fundamental
[that is, they are ALL divisible complex
gravitational constructs of more & more basic
gravitational constructs from galaxies/black
holes to that state of relativistic "absolute
rest" which describes (from our point of view)
the universe of energy which gave birth to the
universe of matter]... and not the galaxy, and
not the atom, nor any other so-called material
thing. All the forms of matter are just that:
"forms" (constructed/shaped by/from/at many
different levels of matter-organization... such
as that of stars, atoms, quarks, and so on down
to "absolute rest."
2) If it is difficult for you to visualize energy
existing without existing as matter, then you
will need to understand that the difference between
energy/matter is one of those distinctions without
much of a difference... since they are merely
quantitative differences. [E=MC^2 but hints at just
how profoundly apart are those quantities.] But
inertia, mass, et al, on the macro level (the human
level) become very apparent as a wrecking ball knocks
against the side of a building: the energy of the
moving ball which crashed against the wall, while
seemingly massive to us, is such a small percentage
of the energy of the ball (of which the ball is
composed)... that only the energy acquired by the
ball's motions are transferred to the wall... the
energy wound-up in the mass/material of the ball
itself is held together with such gravitational
bonds that it would take equally huge investments
of energy from outside (in the form of caloric
or nuclear, etc. "friction") to weaken them. [It is
the same way even in outer space, where... were two
such wrecking balls moving even rather slowly towards
each other, even though they weigh nothing out there
in space... they would still crush into juice anyone
trying to stop them from crashing by "standing"
spreadeagled between them.]
3) Therefore higher quantities of energy do not necessarily
go hand-in-hand with higher temperatures. [Remember that
it is only nuclear particles which engage in nuclear
interactions ("frictions"): Gravity, the force of, never
does. Therefore, in a universe which is ultimately
composed of energy/motion/the force of gravity ONLY
... it should not surprise anyone if its constructs (the
forms of matter) do NOT collect in a pile-up
of fundamental particles at its center... but rather
unwind/slow down/reduce all its energy/motion as they
continue their on-going existence--with the result that
the imploding universe shrinks without losing its
form/shape: The universe's singularity of matter
is not collapsing towards "a" center in the matter of
a collapsing star... rather, it is imploding/shrinking
towards its every imaginable coordinate throughout. And
it will keep on doing this (going on like this) NOT until
its mass (of matter) collects at some centralized point,
but until its forms of matter no longer have enough
energy/motion in them to hold "their forms" and it all
quite, quite literally vanishes back into the universe of
energy... whence it all came.] And until then.. the
universe will continue to have the form it now has and
has always had--with just a few slight changes over time
(such as the apparent recession of the galaxies.. which
are not absolutely receding while relativistically
doing exactly that).
1) S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
1) > Rex
>
>
1) I'll try not to be this brief
next time.
S D Rodrian
"Police Box" <poli...@win.bright.net> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I overestimated your understanding of the matter.
>
> Your blanket doesn't use gravity to stop light!
You mean my blanket is not possessed
(of an event horizon)?!?!?! How do you know this?
You're never been close enough to my blanket to
study the matter objectively: Perhaps you fear
being sucked into it and never being heard from
again--Which tells me that in spite of all your
protestations.. you DO at least think about the
possibility that my blanket MAY just be a black hole!
Gotcha there, my friend. Moreover, as proof that
my blanket IS a black hole I will submit my own
personal testimony that everything I eat in bed
eventually ends up within its threads--How do you
explain THAT?!!!
> Newton's inverse square law only applies
> when you are far enough away that
> the source can be treated as
> a perfect homogeneous sphere.
> Gravity and the strong force are two
> distinct effects. In fact, it is not
> clear that the strong force is a field,
Well, perhaps it's an illusion and electrons
are too tiny for us to "see" that they're all
really little itty bitty flying chickens (it
could happen: being that tiny, chicken would
be able to fly).
> unless particles can be thought of
> as fields as well.
If particles are particles then there's
a particle some distance from my house
where all the neighborhood dogs "go."
> We know how strong the strong force is,
> but not how it works.
Translation: I can see the magic trick
being done, but I can't tell whether it is
or it isn't magic.
> It may be
> that the particles simply get tangled up
> in each other like cotton balls.
That might explain how God was able to "weave"
the universe together (and how there are some
people--confidence tricksters mostly--who can
literally live on a "string" of lies): It's all
starting to make sense now... a stitch in time
and why folks get ruffled so easily when needled,
why babies pucker and--My God!... even why my
blanket is pleated!!!!!
> However, we do know that it doesn't
> fit the behavior of gravity.
Mmmmm... I might've read wrong here, but
I could have sworn you said somewhere else
in this post that you didn't know all that much
about the workings/nature of the strong force!
I could be wrong (I could even be
Alfred E. Newman, for all I know,
just kidding).
re:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:95l4ho$rcg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > S D Rodrian
> > web.sdrodrian.com
> > sdrodrian.com
> > music.sdrodrian.com
> >
> > re:
> >
> > > "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> > > news:951e98$rdt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > [...SNIP!...]
> > > > So, therefore, ANY gravity that "pulls"
> > > >hard enough on "light" will stop it. [You don't
> > > >need a black hole to "stop light" ... all you need
> > > >is "its" same-strength force of gravity:
> > > [...SNIP!...]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >