If i were to arrive in a spaceship and then presented the real nature of light, and show the primitive caveman concept for the mindlessly idiotic piece of garbage that it is with no graounding in reality, and holes all over the place, that is about as logically constructed as a simpsons cartoon...
Why is it that you want to try to prove that I am wrong? I thought science was all about exploring new ideas, not trying to destroy them. Anyone can find an oposing opinion, that's easy; its not a ufo its a weather balloon, its a flying squirrel. Do you have some sentimental atachment to the...
and where exactly did all the people that came up with all the original ideas centuries ago "do their research". Never heard of thinking, never heard of a brain, obviously a school kid, if so don't waste any more time please with silly things you obviously made up without thinking.
If you want to stay in the stone age then that's up to you. Like most primitive minds you fear anything new. Calling something giberih just goes to show your lack of insight and comprehension abilites, and general lack of argument. The primitive mind hates its little world being disturbed, it...
sounds like double dutch to me. When science is barely out of the primeval slum, it is already trying to say it knows everything. It basically makes up theories to comply with what it sees, yet never stops to think is what i am seeing really what i think it is.
Take a tube full of marbles...
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/7/8/1
Like i said, just primitive science. Anyone can quote from a textbook as if it is some kind of infallible bible.This is not the only incidence of going over the speed limit.
Light does have a mass, it has to. Even at that mass the speed which it is claimed to have, one photon would put a hole right through the earth, let alone the trillions that hit us every second. To accelerate at the supposed speed, would require phenominal energy, more like the amount of enrgy...
Intersesting how people seem so obsessed with trying to prove new ideas wrong, and even expect that somethinng that has taken years to figure out, they can find the solution to without even needing to think- such genius.
No I am trying to point out that according to the current theory of light, the phenominom I have pointed out would be impossible, therefore that theory can't be correct, it has a flaw that has not yet been accounted for.
What percentage of light from a laser could you possible expect to...
Umm...well actually if you had cared to read what it was referring to, it was referring the previous statement, therefore was not saying that light is not reflected off sand but only at that angle. And umm that is not how you see.
You can't seem to get this through your head, I am not taling about the BEAM of light that can be seen when it hits dust or smoke particles in the air. I am talking about the point where the beam of light hits the ground,that illuminates the surface area, that point and that point only, so...
as already stated, in order for that to be true, it would mean that the value of the light energy of the one or two photons that magically come back to you would need to bee the same as the total value of all the other light that hits the surface, since you still see the point of impact with the...
Yes you can as stated previously, in an experiment. You see the light that hits the ground be it torch or laser. Being at an angle whereby reflection is in the opposite direction.