Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #402250 > unrolled thread

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

Started by	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
First post	2016-12-18 21:24 -0800
Last post	2016-12-31 07:09 -0800
Articles	20 on this page of 207 — 26 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →

#403590

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2016-12-31 04:00 -0800
Message-ID	<ba98cdf6-5b1b-4c6a-97ac-6f39acb44aff@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403565

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 9:57:16 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > The effect of total internal reflections is evident by the large
> > amount of modal dispersion that one measures in step index
> > multimode fiber, which cannot be used for high speed transmission
> > of data over more than a very short distance.
> 
> That explanation is based on "theory", not observation.
> 
> I repeat: the assumption that the graded or stepped refractive index
> of an optical fibre is sufficient to prevent TIRs is not justified.
> 
> ----snip----
> 
> > You need to analyze single mode fiber behavior using wave theory.
> 
> No. YOU need to do an experiment that has no no "theory"-based
> assumptions hidden in its design. Try the one outlined above.
> 
> ----snip----

Quite stubborn, aren't you? 

OK, let's try a different tack. 
You wrote, 'it has not been established that light "moves slower in glass".'

In the mid-1800s, debate still raged on the nature of light. Wave or particle?
Despite the observation of Arago's spot in 1819, Newton's theory of light
corpuscles still maintained a significant following, especially in Great Britain.
I gather that there was a lot of national pride involved, France versus England
and all that.

Anyhow, the wave and particle theories of light explained Snell's law in
fundamentally different manners. Wave theory explained the bending of a ray of 
light as it enters an air/water interface as being due to the slowing down of
the light. The additive effect on the wavelets making up the wavefront was
that the wavefront rotated. Newton, on the other hand, explained the bending
of a ray of light as being due to a sort of gravitational attraction of the
light particles by the water in the direction normal to the air/water interface,
and explained Snell's law as being due to a *speeding up* of the particles.

A differential comparison of the speeds of light in air versus water was
considered an "experimentum crucis" that would serve to distinguish between 
particle and wave theories.

In 1850, Leon Foucault and his former friend (now bitter rival) Hippolyte Fizeau 
set out to perform this critical test. Both used variants of a rotating mirror 
design that, many years later, was to be adopted by Michelson in his definitive 
1926 electro-mechanical determination of the speed of light. (Fizeau is today 
better known for his toothed-wheel determination of the speed of light, but that 
is a different story.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Speed_of_light_calculation_using_Foucault%27s_rotating_mirror.png

For simplicity, the above Wikipedia illustration omits showing a lens that 
focuses an image of the slit S on the spherical mirror M. With the system
properly collimated, it should be evident that no matter how mirror R is tilted, 
the image of the slit will reform at the original position of the slit.

Things are different if the mirror R is in rapid rotation. Because of the 
finite speed of light, between the time that light bounces from the R to M and
back, mirror R will have rotated by an angle theta, and the speed of light 
can be calculated from this angle.

To perform the *differential* comparison of the speed of light in air versus
water, Foucault used one rotating mirror and TWO spherical mirrors, placing a
column of water in one path.
http://www.bibnum.education.fr/sites/default/files/figure-6_2.jpg

Upon setting the plane mirror in rotation, Foucault observed that the image of 
the slit whose light had passed through the column of water was *advanced* 
relative to the image of the slit whose light path had been entirely in air, 
thus demonstrating the speed of light to be slower in water and deprecating 
Newton's theory.

Although Foucault was first to report this result, Fizeau followed with his
independent confirmation a few weeks later, and the popular press hailed the
two *together* as having performed the definitive experiments marking the 
triumph of wave theory over particulate theory.

This state of affairs lasted until 1905...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403628

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2016-12-31 21:41 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6g9fp.hr4.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403590

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > The effect of total internal reflections is evident by the large
> > > amount of modal dispersion that one measures in step index
> > > multimode fiber, which cannot be used for high speed transmission
> > > of data over more than a very short distance.
> >
> > That explanation is based on "theory", not observation.
> >
> > I repeat: the assumption that the graded or stepped refractive index
> > of an optical fibre is sufficient to prevent TIRs is not justified.
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > You need to analyze single mode fiber behavior using wave theory.
> >
> > No. YOU need to do an experiment that has no no "theory"-based
> > assumptions hidden in its design. Try the one outlined above.
>
> Quite stubborn, aren't you?

I insist on validity in both experiment and argument. Unwarranted
assumptions violate that. Assumptions based on some theory or other
make a mockery of the idea of scientific enquiry. If the results
are used to "confirm" the theory, you have nothing. Circular
"reasoning" is not reasoning.

----snip----

> Upon setting the plane mirror in rotation, Foucault observed that
> the image of the slit whose light had passed through the column
> of water was *advanced* relative to the image of the slit whose
> light path had been entirely in air, thus demonstrating the speed
> of light to be slower in water and deprecating Newton's theory.

Wrong adjective. Change it from "slower" to "different", and lose
the conclusion.

They had no idea of the speed of light in those days, and therefore
no quantitative idea of how it and the speed of the rotating mirror
would interact.

----snip----

Those who accept current theory are adamant that the Snell's Law
relation between speed and refractive index is fact. But in fact
it has not been established. *All* lightspedd experiments and
tests so far conducted have been flawed by invalid assumptions
hidden in their design or in the interpretation of their results.

Those who accept current theory should keep in mind that current
theory is now at a crossroads: the idea of reconciling quantum
theory and general relativity has collapsed with string theory.
It behoves them and all of us to look carefully at the assumptions
we make and the assumptions we accept.

Try the experiment I outlined a couple of posts ago.
That one *IS* unequivocal.

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403635

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2016-12-31 14:36 -0800
Message-ID	<78376972-8707-4ef4-86f2-74e148cba0ee@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403628

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 3:41:19 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > Upon setting the plane mirror in rotation, Foucault observed that
> > the image of the slit whose light had passed through the column
> > of water was *advanced* relative to the image of the slit whose
> > light path had been entirely in air, thus demonstrating the speed
> > of light to be slower in water and deprecating Newton's theory.
> 
> Wrong adjective. Change it from "slower" to "different", and lose
> the conclusion.

The calculation of light speed is EXCEEDINGLY trivial. 
File:Speed of light calculation using Foucault's rotating mirror.png

In the above illustration, the distance between R and M is h. The time for light
to bounce from R to M and back is 2h/c. If the angular rate of rotation of the 
mirror is ω, then the speed of light is c = 2ωh/θ

The greater the angle θ, the lower the speed of light and vice versa.

Do you have any issues with this trivial computation? Is there too much theory 
in these calculations for you to trust?

> They had no idea of the speed of light in those days, and therefore
> no quantitative idea of how it and the speed of the rotating mirror
> would interact.

Foucault's and Fizeau's apparatuses were constructed so that they measured the 
deflections of the test beam and the control beam AT THE SAME TIME, i.e. they 
obtained RATIOs of their inverse speeds. In Wikipedia, we read:
   Contemporary accounts of Fizeau's and Foucault's 1850 experiments refer to 
   their relative speed determinations as a decisive experimentum crucis of 
   emission theory, without mentioning any absolute speed measurements. For 
   example, the Literary Gazette for June 29, 1850 (p 441) reported "The results 
   of the experiments of MM. Fizeau and Brequet [sic], on the comparative 
   quickness of light in air and in water, strongly support the undulatory 
   theory of light. If the lengths traversed by two luminous rays, the one 
   through air and the other through a column of water, were the same for the 
   two media, the time of passing would have been in the ratio of four to three, 
   according to the one or the other theory, and the deviations of the rays 
   produced by the rotation of the mirror would have been in the same ratio."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403643

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-01 00:43 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6gk5r.vh2.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403635

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > >
> > > Upon setting the plane mirror in rotation, Foucault observed that
> > > the image of the slit whose light had passed through the column
> > > of water was *advanced* relative to the image of the slit whose
> > > light path had been entirely in air, thus demonstrating the speed
> > > of light to be slower in water and deprecating Newton's theory.
> >
> > Wrong adjective. Change it from "slower" to "different", and lose
> > the conclusion.
>
> The calculation of light speed is EXCEEDINGLY trivial.

Irrelevant.

Address what you snipped.

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403649

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2016-12-31 17:02 -0800
Message-ID	<28b1160c-69dc-4b23-b5f7-8971301b71e9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403643

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 6:43:41 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Upon setting the plane mirror in rotation, Foucault observed that
> > > > the image of the slit whose light had passed through the column
> > > > of water was *advanced* relative to the image of the slit whose
> > > > light path had been entirely in air, thus demonstrating the speed
> > > > of light to be slower in water and deprecating Newton's theory.
> > >
> > > Wrong adjective. Change it from "slower" to "different", and lose
> > > the conclusion.
> >
> > The calculation of light speed is EXCEEDINGLY trivial.
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> Address what you snipped.

Read and ponder what I posted. I was INDEED addressing your point by describing
Foucault's and Fizeau's 1850 experiments. There were NO TIRs in Foucault's
column of water. Look at his experimental design!!!!
http://www.bibnum.education.fr/sites/default/files/figure-6_2.jpg 

What you outlined from several posts ago was this:
| I'm suggesting it now. With "composition" of the cable, he's      
| referring to refractive index, which in turn incorporates 
| a Snell's Law assumption. And that "wavelemgth" dependency 
| is pure poppycock. I am saying that those measurements have 
| not beem accurate repetitions, and do not confirm each other. 
| The assumption that the graded or stepped refractive index 
| of an optical fibre is sufficient to prevent TIRs is not 
| justified; the experiment needs to be carried out using a 
| block or rod of glass of uniform composition and thick enough 
| for a beam to be SEEN traversing it without any TIRs occurring. 

All of your above concerns were addressed 166 years ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403669

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-01 06:41 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6h95j.9gn.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403649

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Upon setting the plane mirror in rotation, Foucault observed that
> > > > > the image of the slit whose light had passed through the column
> > > > > of water was *advanced* relative to the image of the slit whose
> > > > > light path had been entirely in air, thus demonstrating the speed
> > > > > of light to be slower in water and deprecating Newton's theory.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong adjective. Change it from "slower" to "different", and lose
> > > > the conclusion.
> > >
> > > The calculation of light speed is EXCEEDINGLY trivial.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> >
> > Address what you snipped.
>
> Read and ponder what I posted. I was INDEED addressing your point

You were not. You're barking up the wrong tree.

----snip----

> All of your above concerns were addressed 166 years ago.

Bunk. No qualified physicist has ever even so much as *looked* at
the invalid conclusion that I am concernewd about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403395

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2016-12-29 22:31 +0000
Message-ID	<o442ss$gil$3@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#403321

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

>Tom Roberts wrote:

>> Any user of optical fibers (made of glass) who cares about
>> the propagation time must account for light moving slower
>> in glass (than in vacuum).

>Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain: unless you can
>hold a fibre absolutely straight, and align your light emitter
>exactly on the centre of the fibre and so that it emits light
>exactly in the direction of the length of fibre, the light
>it emits into the fibre will encounter the sides of the fibre
>an unknown number of times. IOW, the light will undergo an
>unknown mumber of Total Internal Reflections.

>Now do feel free to justify for us all how you can regard the
>extra time takem up by an unknown number of TIRs as so
>insignificant that you can conclude that the time taken for
>the light's traversal of the length of the fibre indicates the
>speed of its movement within the fibre.

In an earlier job, we had this enormous roll of fibre optic cable used
for testing how propagation delay of fibre channel signals affected
certain systems under test.  The fibre never left the spool, so it was
curved more than a fibre that was actually installed so in theory would
have more reflections than a straighter run.  So why was the delay time 
the same as what the manufacturer said it would be for an installed run?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403460

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2016-12-30 13:02 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6cmn9.94o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403395

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > Any user of optical fibers (made of glass) who cares about
> > > the propagation time must account for light moving slower
> > > in glass (than in vacuum).
> >
> > Use your whatever it is that passes for a brain: unless you can
> > hold a fibre absolutely straight, and align your light emitter
> > exactly on the centre of the fibre and so that it emits light
> > exactly in the direction of the length of fibre, the light
> > it emits into the fibre will encounter the sides of the fibre
> > an unknown number of times. IOW, the light will undergo an
> > unknown mumber of Total Internal Reflections.
> >
> > Now do feel free to justify for us all how you can regard the
> > extra time takem up by an unknown number of TIRs as so
> > insignificant that you can conclude that the time taken for
> > the light's traversal of the length of the fibre indicates the
> > speed of its movement within the fibre.
>
> In an earlier job, we had this enormous roll of fibre optic cable
> used for testing how propagation delay of fibre channel signals
> affected certain systems under test. The fibre never left the spool,
> so it was curved more than a fibre that was actually installed so
> in theory would have more reflections than a straighter run.
> So why was the delay time the same as what the manufacturer said
> it would be for an installed run?

Because your "fibre" isn't a fibre; it's a cable: many fibres twisted
together. The light traversing your fibre-optic CABLE encounters the
wall of a fibre every few decimetres at most, probably every few
centimetres. Depends on the twist.

So OF COURSE there's no difference in the delay times of a spooled
cable and an installed one.

Ned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403458

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-12-30 04:38 -0800
Message-ID	<354c02f3-a422-4055-8c6d-7a71411c0918@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403201

W dniu środa, 28 grudnia 2016 16:14:35 UTC+1 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał:

> Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not been
> established that light "moves slower in glass".

And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403463

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2016-12-30 13:12 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6cnae.94o.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403458

mlwozniak wrote:
> Ned Latham  wrote:
> >
> > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not been
> > established that light "moves slower in glass".
>
> And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.

Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb Polack.
There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403467

From	"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-12-30 05:29 -0800
Message-ID	<47261f3d-09e3-4356-a112-22ec123a417f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403463

7:12 AMNed Latham
mlwozniak wrote: 
> Ned Latham  wrote: 
> > 
> > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not been 
> > established that light "moves slower in glass". 
> 
> And there is no proof you're not a camel, too. 

Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb Polack. 
There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical for you. 

Yeah .......
A glass prism which has a defined refraction index that proves light transitioning glass propagates more slow started this whole mess like 2 or 3 centuries ago. 
Why is "That Dead Cat" still being drug around modern science?

1. Newton's crucial experiment

English natural philosopher Isaac Newton bought his first prism in 1666, in an attempt to disprove French natural philosopher Rene Descartes' theory of light. This was one year after Italian natural philosopher Francesco Grimaldi's work on diffraction was published

Obfuscation & Derailment

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403472

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2016-12-30 14:25 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6cri9.b80.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403467

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller incompetently wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > Ned Latham  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not been
> > > > established that light "moves slower in glass".
> > >
> > > And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.
> >
> > Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb Polack.
> > There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical for you.
>
> Yeah .......
> A glass prism which has a defined refraction index that proves light
> transitioning glass propagates more slow started this whole mess
> like 2 or 3 centuries ago.

Wrong. Lightspeed measurements weren't possible back then.

----snip----

Med

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403477

From	"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-12-30 06:48 -0800
Message-ID	<a3b3209b-a447-420a-b26a-097790caad3d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403472

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 8:25:14 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller incompetently wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not been
> > > > > established that light "moves slower in glass".
> > > >
> > > > And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.
> > >
> > > Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb Polack.
> > > There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical for you.
> >
> > Yeah .......
> > A glass prism which has a defined refraction index that proves light
> > transitioning glass propagates more slow started this whole mess
> > like 2 or 3 centuries ago.
> 
> Wrong. Lightspeed measurements weren't possible back then.
> 
> ----snip----
> 
> Med

You are Beyond Hope of Learning or advancing past where you are Right Now.

You're Done

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403490

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2016-12-30 16:43 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6d3m4.eh6.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403477

David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller incompetently wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not been
> > > > > > established that light "moves slower in glass".
> > > > >
> > > > > And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.
> > > >
> > > > Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb
> > > > Polack. There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical
> > > > for you.
> > >
> > > Yeah .......
> > > A glass prism which has a defined refraction index that proves light
> > > transitioning glass propagates more slow started this whole mess
> > > like 2 or 3 centuries ago.
> >
> > Wrong. Lightspeed measurements weren't possible back then.
>
> You are Beyond Hope of Learning or advancing past where you are Right Now.

You don't have the wherewithal to judge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403494

From	"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-12-30 09:10 -0800
Message-ID	<3d669cf1-6d9e-4600-85f3-45a08de9f98b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403490

Ned Latham wrote:


You don't have the wherewithal to judge. 

Ned Latham Brain = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJxpa9plCfs

Lord Kronos Brain = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glcOo_vbQ7g

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403469

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-12-30 05:55 -0800
Message-ID	<305756ff-4a2a-4d1a-ae42-c78a9adb4f57@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403463

W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 14:12:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> > Ned Latham  wrote:
> > >
> > > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not been
> > > established that light "moves slower in glass".
> >
> > And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.
> 
> Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb Polack.
> There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical for you.

A lie. As expected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403474

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2016-12-30 14:36 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6cs75.b80.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403469

mlwozniak wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not
> > > > been established that light "moves slower in glass".
> > >
> > > And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.
> >
> > Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb
> > Polack. There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical
> > for you.
>
> A lie. As expected.

Oh, my. You are a PICKY lackwit, aren't you? In point of fact, it's
not a lie; just an underestimate: there are in fact a great many
such proofs.

All of them, of course, too techinical for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403496

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-12-30 09:21 -0800
Message-ID	<ffadebca-4841-4357-adbd-af73af5d2275@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403474

W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 15:36:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał:
> mlwozniak wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not
> > > > > been established that light "moves slower in glass".
> > > >
> > > > And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.
> > >
> > > Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb
> > > Polack. There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical
> > > for you.
> >
> > A lie. As expected.
> 
> Oh, my. You are a PICKY lackwit, aren't you? In point of fact, it's
> not a lie; just an underestimate: there are in fact a great many
> such proofs.

No.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403500

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2016-12-30 17:58 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6d82k.fn8.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403496

mlwozniak wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > mlwozniak wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Get it into your pointy little heads, kiddies: it has not
> > > > > > been established that light "moves slower in glass".
> > > > >
> > > > > And there is no proof you're not a camel, too.
> > > >
> > > > Sad that you so readily live down to the stereotype of the dumb
> > > > Polack. There is such a proof actually, but it's too technical
> > > > for you.
> > >
> > > A lie. As expected.
> >
> > Oh, my. You are a PICKY lackwit, aren't you?
>
> No.

Don't be ridiculous: of course you are. What other kind of lackwit
would pick on such a *little* flaw as an underestimate?

> >                                           In point of fact, it's
> > not a lie; just an underestimate: there are in fact a great many
> > such proofs.
> >
> > All of them, of course, too techinical for you.

But then, the proofs that you're a bumbling boob are too techncal
for you, too.

There is a cure for your idiocy, you know. If you ask nicely, I
might even tell it to you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403505

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2016-12-30 11:35 -0800
Message-ID	<0602faa4-ad59-4a1e-b2a0-0bdf9b7987b6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403500

W dniu piątek, 30 grudnia 2016 18:58:50 UTC+1 użytkownik Ned Latham napisał:

> There is a cure for your idiocy, you know. If you ask nicely, I
> might even tell it to you.

Taking a look at you - it has to be placebo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →

csiph-web

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

Contents

#403590

#403628

#403635

#403643

#403649

#403669

#403395

#403460

#403458

#403463

#403467

#403472

#403477

#403490

#403494

#403469

#403474

#403496

#403500

#403505