Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #403869

Re: Why is the speed of light slower in glass and regains its normal speeds as it exits from glass?

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why is the speed of light slower in glass and regains its normal speeds as it exits from glass?
Date	2017-01-03 16:08 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<o4gi9s$lak$2@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	(18 earlier) <slrno6itj5.ql.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <o4c0iv$7t0$1@pcls7.std.com> <slrno6k73a.jah.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <o4fbv1$g4p$4@pcls7.std.com> <slrno6mn0p.n0c.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>

Show all headers | View raw

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Michael Moroney wrote
>> > > Ned Latham writes:
>> > > > Michael Moroney wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > Single mode fiber (which doesn't work by the light
>> > > > > > > bouncing off the surface of the inner fiber, the
>> > > > > > > light goes straight down the core)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There is no evidence for that whatever.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes there is, in what you snipped.
>> > > >
>> > > > Bullshit. "Theory"-based assertions are not evidence.
>> > >
>> > > No, this is not "theory" but
>> >
>> > Learn to read. I said "theory"-based assertions.
>>
>> Learn to snip properly.

>Practise what you preach, maggot. The problem with the Attributions
>above originated with YOUR post <o4bich$5ib$1@pcls7.std.com>.

I am talking about how you quote a half a sentence, which has a different
meaning and then you respond to the changed meaning.

Speaking of snipping, I see I was correct in the following:

<unsnip>

: Do you know anything about waveguides at all? How fiber is waveguides
: for light?  What is the difference between TE00 and TE10 modes? What
: mode(s) apply to multimode fiber? What mode(s) apply to single mode
: fiber?  Will you answer any of this or just snip it?

</unsnip>

No response? Just a snip as predicted?

So let's hear it. Do you have an advanced degree in physics or electrical
engineering or something with an expertice in photonics, waveguide theory,
microwave engineering, quantum mechanics, optics? Or relevant work experience?

Or you just yet another crank with an idée fixe on some odd topic with you
being "the first to discover...", deserving of a Nobel Prize, except that
the Grand Conspiracy has suppressed the facts...  Dime a dozen here...

>> > > > >: Single mode fiber (which doesn't work by the light bouncing
>> > > > >: off the surface of the inner fiber,
>> >
>> > That is speculation, pure and simple.
>> > There is no way it can have beem OBSERVED.
>>
>> Sorry, it has been observed,

>Bullshit. *Nothing* inside those fibres has ever been observed.

>> and it is why single mode fiber was created in the first place.

>Get yourself a neuron implant, moron. Even a complete fuckwit should
>know that you can't observe something inside an object that doesn't
>yet exist.

Observed in the science sense.  An experiment performed where the
outcome Y is one way if X is true and Y has a different result if
X is false.  Not some micro observer inside the center core wth a
tiny flashlight seeing if the boundary acts mirrorlike.

But we do have results like that for microwaves, which are larger
than light waves.

>> > > > Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive index
>> > > > of a single-mode fibre really does prevent TIRs from
>> > > > occurring, why do manufacturers build those fibres
>> > > > with cladding layers?
>> > >
>> > > That's like asking why is there a need for the microwave
>> > > "plumbing"  itself in a microwave feed when the microwaves
>> > > move through the air inside. It forms the waveguide.
>> >
>> > Wrong. Absent force at a distance, *nothing* can "guide" what
>> > it doesn't touch.
>> >
>> > You're not claiming force at a a distance, are you?
>>
>> Ummm, electric charge? Magnetism? Gravity?

>This is about light in glass, fuckwit. Are you claiming a
>force-at-a-distabce "wave"-guide for the 1300 nm laser beam
>in the core of your single-mode optical fibre?

Quantum theory is weird. With HUP, it's not strictly accurate to
talk about fixed, exact locations for one.  But I am unsure what
exactly you are babbling about as the "force at a a distance"
in this context.  But the existence of charges, magnetism and
gravity do show there are forces at distances.

>> BTW with all your typos, I suspect you must be foaming at the mouth
>> as you reply. Perhaps you need to calm down first.

>I'm a hunt-and-peck typist with bad eyesight. I'm calm enough, just
>contemptous of your wilful stupidity.

Just get a tissue and wipe the foam away, please.

Thread

csiph-web