Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #404074

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	2017-01-05 05:19 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<o4kl1s$8pm$4@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	(18 earlier) <slrno6k73a.jah.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <o4fbv1$g4p$4@pcls7.std.com> <slrno6mn0p.n0c.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <o4gi9s$lak$2@pcls7.std.com> <slrno6ntu2.7fg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>

Show all headers | View raw

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

>"Theory"-based assertions are not evidence.

So you admit there is no evidence to your assertion that light in a single
mode fiber reflects via total internal reflection.

Since you snipped the following AGAIN without response:

:<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?

I must be correct that you simply don't have any expertise in any field
related to the optics of optical fiber, or have any justification to your
claim the speed of light in non-vacuum is still c.

You just have a crazy idea stuck in your head and are here to k00k about
it, just like McFly, Plutonium, Rabbidge/Wilson, Sefton and the others. 
Actually, you are the anti-Rabbidge, he thinks the speed of light is
variable to observers, you seem to think it's c no matter what the material.

>> > > 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.

>Quit the weaslling. Or should I call it "lying"?

Of course you have no observations for your claims.

So you quit your own lying.

>>                                 An experiment performed where the
>> outcome Y is one way if X is true and Y has a different result if
>> X is false.

>And quit the obscurantist gerneralisations, too.

Sorry, but that's how science works.

> You claim that a
>phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from occurring in single
>mode optical fibres?

Look up how waveguides work, the different propagation modes and so forth. All
the propagation modes except for one have cutoff frequencies above the laser
light frequency.  Quantum theory at that level/size as well.

>Show something you think mught pass as evidebce of it.

Kilometers of single mode fiber carrying internet traffic and telephone calls
without suffering from dispersion caused by multiple reflection modes causing
different length light paths.  Easily observed by trying to carry the same
internet traffic/telephone calls over those same kilometers using multimode
fiber (which DOES operate as you claim) and observing it not working.

Like it or not, the very internet infrastructure you are using to spread
your arguments proves you wrong.

>> > > > 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.

>Learn to read. It's as plain and straightforward as a statement
>can get. Ur's still there, above, in response to your idiotic
>claim that the cladding in a single-mode optical fibre forms
>a waveguide: 'Wrong. Absent force at a distance, *nothing* can
>"guide" what it doesn't touch'.

It's not the cladding that forms the waveguide. It's the combination of
the core and the cladding that does so.  No force over distance even
though there is nothing wrong with that.

>>                   But the existence of charges, magnetism and
>> gravity do show there are forces at distances.

>Quit the evasions too. 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?

No force at a distance necessary.  See above.

>Put up or shut up, maggot.

Why the needless insults? You are as bad as Seto.

Thread

csiph-web