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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →

#403734

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-01 21:36 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6itj5.ql.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403713

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > "The simplest type of optical fiber is called single-mode.
> > > >
> > > > Not the one you left intact. And if it was one of the others,
> > > > why didn't you leave that one intact?
> > >
> > > 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. 

Byllshit. "Theory"-based assertions are not ecidence.

>                                     I quote myself:
>
>: 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) is the
>: only type that works over a long distance.  Multimode fiber has lights
>: travelling different path lengths since they travel at different angles in
>: the fiber. Over a long distance, "slow" light sent first overlaps "fast"
>: light sent later and the data gets "smeared" and is not usable.

There is no evidebce for any of that. It's all speculation.

> You see, in multimode fiber, the "fast" light (which is going straighter
> so travels a shorter distance in the fiber) catches up with earlier "slow"
> light which is traveling at a larger angle so it travels a longer distance.
> This "smears" the data so it is no longer distinct on-off pulses.

You're babbling. Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive index
of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from occurring, why do
manufacturers build those fivres with cladding layers?

> Single mode fiber also works exactly the same way as single mode microwave
> waveguides, which is technology that has been known and used since the
> 1940s. It is also predicted by quantum theory.

More same ole same ole.

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

#403741

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2017-01-01 22:41 +0000
Message-ID	<o4c0iv$7t0$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#403734

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

>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Michael Moroney wrote:
>> > > > > "The simplest type of optical fiber is called single-mode.
>> > > >
>> > > > Not the one you left intact. And if it was one of the others,
>> > > > why didn't you leave that one intact?
>> > >
>> > > 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. 

>Byllshit. "Theory"-based assertions are not ecidence.

No, this is not "theory" but well-established electromagnetic practice
including not only single mode fiber but microwave waveguide design.

>>                                     I quote myself:
>>
>>: 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) is the
>>: only type that works over a long distance.  Multimode fiber has lights
>>: travelling different path lengths since they travel at different angles in
>>: the fiber. Over a long distance, "slow" light sent first overlaps "fast"
>>: light sent later and the data gets "smeared" and is not usable.

>There is no evidebce for any of that. It's all speculation.

Again, not "theory" or "speculation" but well-established electrical
engineering practice.  Evidence is that your replies get sent out on the
very single mode fiber that you don't believe in and actually reach others.

>> You see, in multimode fiber, the "fast" light (which is going straighter
>> so travels a shorter distance in the fiber) catches up with earlier "slow"
>> light which is traveling at a larger angle so it travels a longer distance.
>> This "smears" the data so it is no longer distinct on-off pulses.

>You're babbling.

Nope.  See the multimode diagram at
http://cdn4.explainthatstuff.com/fiberoptics.gif (from the very website
you gave as evidence of "support").  The purple line takes a longer path
than the green line, which is longer than the light blue straight line
path.  The path lengrh is inversely proportional to the cosine of the
angle made with the straight line path.

> Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive index
>of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from occurring, why do
>manufacturers build those fivres 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.

>> Single mode fiber also works exactly the same way as single mode microwave
>> waveguides, which is technology that has been known and used since the
>> 1940s. It is also predicted by quantum theory.

>More same ole same ole.

Yet still the truth.

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

#403765

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-02 09:24 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6k73a.jah.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403741

Michael Moroney wrote
> Ned Latham writes:
> >Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > > > > "The simplest type of optical fiber is called single-mode.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not the one you left intact. And if it was one of the others,
> > > > > > why didn't you leave that one intact?
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.

----snip----

> > >: 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.

----snip----

> Again, not "theory" or "speculation" but well-established electrical
> engineering practice.

Engineering practise is not process observation. You don't have
to have the right idea about how a process proceeds in order to
use it effevctively. Aeronautics is an infamous example of that.

----snip----

> > Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive index
> > of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from occurring, why do
> > manufacturers build those fivres 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?

----snip---

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

#403848

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2017-01-03 05:14 +0000
Message-ID	<o4fbv1$g4p$4@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#403765

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

>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.

>> No, this is not "theory" but well-established electromagnetic practice
>> including not only single mode fiber but microwave waveguide design.

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?

>> > >: 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, and it is why single mode fiber was created
in the first place.  It is the job of engineers to take what scientists
have discovered and invented and create products from it, in this case,
single mode fiber which works over long distances.

Remember, the core of single mode fiber is only about 10 micrometers,
which is only about ~15 times the wavelength of the IR light used (after
correcting for the refractive index).  The ray theory of light doesn't
work in this case, it works only when the dimensions involved are quite
large compared to the wavelength.  The ray theory of light essentially
assumes a bunch of propagation modes exist, and these become total
internal reflection.  When the core is small enough, the number of
modes, which are quantized, get reduced, and you have to deal with the
wave equation.  Single mode fiber has the number of modes reduced to
one, which is straight down.  Remember, the reason for single mode in
the first place is because all those other modes propogate down the
fiber at different speeds and the usable data rate decreases with 
increased length.

>> Again, not "theory" or "speculation" but well-established electrical
>> engineering practice.

>Engineering practise is not process observation. You don't have
>to have the right idea about how a process proceeds in order to
>use it effevctively. Aeronautics is an infamous example of that.

You have to have the right idea to create single mode fiber in the
first place. Nobody would ever have created something like that which
must be quite difficult to make the very first time.  They made it because
theory said it would work, testing showed it did work (and matched theory)
and engineers made a useful product from it.

Engineers then modify the product because of different materials, 
different frequencies etc. using the theory and guess what? It works!
That means they really do have the right idea how it all works.

>> > Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive index
>> > of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from occurring, why do
>> > manufacturers build those fivres 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?

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

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

#403857

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-03 08:08 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6mn0p.n0c.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403848

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>.

----babble removed----

> > > > >: 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.

----snip----

> > > > 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?

> 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.

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

#403869

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2017-01-03 16:08 +0000
Message-ID	<o4gi9s$lak$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#403857

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.

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

#403884

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-03 19:13 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6ntu2.7fg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403869

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ned Latham 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.

The snip above changed no meaning, you lying maggot: it removed
excess verbiage from a straw man evasion. And back to the point:

"Theory"-based assertions are not evidence.

----irrelevant rambling snipped----

> > > > > > >: 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.

Quit the weaslling. Or should I call it "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. You claim that a
phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from occurring in single
mode optical fibres?

Show something you think mught pass as evidebce of it.

----snip----

> > > > > > 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.

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'.

>                   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?

Put up or shut up, maggot.

----snip----

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

#404074

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2017-01-05 05:19 +0000
Message-ID	<o4kl1s$8pm$4@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#403884

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.

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

#404103

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-05 15:28 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6spgr.bk2.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#404074

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ned Latham 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.

What do you mean, "admit"? I never said, implied or hinted otherwise.

----snip----

> or have any justification to your claim the speed of light in
> non-vacuum is still c.

I have never made any such claim. Nor have I ever implied or even
hinted at any such claim.

----snip----

> > > > > 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.

*What* claims, liar?

----snip----

> > You claim that a
> > phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from occurring in single
> > mode optical fibres? Show something you think mught pass as
> > evidebce of it.

----obscurantist babble between question challenge removed----

> 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.

That is not ecidence that a phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from
occurring in single mode optical fibres.

----snip----

> > Learn to read. It's as plain and straightforward as a statement
> > can get. It'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.

So now you contradict yourself. Do you actually know *any* of what
you're babbling about?

> It's the combination of the core and the cladding that does so.

Weasel words.

> No force over distance even though there is nothing wrong with that.

So. No force at a distance. At fucking last. That leaves the
remainder of the statement above: '...*nothing* can "guide"
what it doesn't touch'.

Do feel free to tell us all how the action of your alleged
cladding/core "waveguide" might be distinguished from TIR
at the cladding/core interface.

----snup----

> > Put up or shut up, maggot.
>
> Why the needless insults?

They're not needless.

>                           You are as bad as Seto.

You're wrong again, lackwit. I'm not bad at all, actually. Possibly not
supremely good, but then there's not much call for excellence in this NG.
Well, truth be told, none. You lot aren't scientists, you're believers.
And you're too thick to get it if subtle insults are used.

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

#404428

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-07 14:44 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno71vmc.ls5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#404103

I wrote some stiff that the Moron y seems unable to handle.
Maybe if I seciion it?

> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Ned Latham 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.
>
> What do you mean, "admit"? I never said, implied or hinted otherwise.
>
> ----snip----
>
> > or have any justification to your claim the speed of light in
> > non-vacuum is still c.
>
> I have never made any such claim. Nor have I ever implied or even
> hinted at any such claim.
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> *What* claims, liar?

There you go. Just one issue to deal with: those claims you allege
I'be made.

----snip----

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

#404429

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-07 14:57 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno720fl.ls5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#404103

I wrote some stiff that the Moron y seems unable to handle.
Maybe if I seciion it?

> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Ned Latham writes:

----snip----

> > > You claim that a
> > > phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from occurring in single
> > > mode optical fibres? Show something you think mught pass as
> > > evidebce of it.
>
> ----obscurantist babble between question challenge removed----
>
> > 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.
>
> That is not evidence that a phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from
> occurring in single mode optical fibres.

Let me make it a little easier for you to understand:

1. The light used in single-mode fibres is laser light. It is both
   monochromatic and coherent, as a direcdt result of which:
2. You have no basis for postulating multiple reflection modes in
   single-mode fibre;
3. You have no basis for postulating that any part of a pulse will
   be reflected more often than any other part;
4. You therefore have no basis for postulating paths of different
   lengths, and therefore no basis for postulating dispersion.

----snip----

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

#404542

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-08 09:57 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno7438j.j6q.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#404429

I sectioned a multi-issue post in the hope of getting the Moron y
to face up to his own idiocies, but...

> I wrote some stuff that the Moron y seems unable to handle.
> Maybe if I section it?

And in fact he's so averse to it that he's gone to the trouble of
replying to an old post, apparently in the hope of convincing
other readers that he's answerted one of these posts.

> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Ned Latham writes:
>
> ----snip----
>
> > > > You claim that a
> > > > phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from occurring in single
> > > > mode optical fibres? Show something you think mught pass as
> > > > evidebce of it.
> >
> > ----obscurantist babble between question challenge removed----
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > That is not evidence that a phenomenon exists which prevents TIR from
> > occurring in single mode optical fibres.
>
> Let me make it a little easier for you to understand:
>
> 1. The light used in single-mode fibres is laser light. It is both
>    monochromatic and coherent, as a direcdt result of which:
> 2. You have no basis for postulating multiple reflection modes in
>    single-mode fibre;
> 3. You have no basis for postulating that any part of a pulse will
>    be reflected more often than any other part;
> 4. You therefore have no basis for postulating paths of different
>    lengths, and therefore no basis for postulating dispersion.

Get your finger out, Moron y, address the issue.

> ----snip----

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

#404432

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-07 15:07 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno72110.ls5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#404103

I wrote some stuff that the Moron y seems unable to handle.
Maybe if I section it?

> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Ned Latham writes:

----snip----

> > > Learn to read. It's as plain and straightforward as a statement
> > > can get. It'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.
>
> So now you contradict yourself. Do you actually know *any* of what
> you're babbling about?
>
> > It's the combination of the core and the cladding that does so.
>
> Weasel words.
>
> > No force over distance even though there is nothing wrong with that.
>
> So. No force at a distance. At fucking last. That leaves the
> remainder of the statement above: '...*nothing* can "guide"
> what it doesn't touch'.
>
> Do feel free to tell us all how the action of your alleged
> cladding/core "waveguide" might be distinguished from TIR
> at the cladding/core interface.

Come on. If you're so certain of what you say it should be easy.
Give us the benefit of your <snigger> knowledge.

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

#404523

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2017-01-08 04:53 +0000
Message-ID	<o4sgl1$bf$2@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#404103

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

>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Ned Latham 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.

>What do you mean, "admit"? I never said, implied or hinted otherwise.

Because you made a theory-based assertion, which you now claim is not
evidence.

>----snip----

So once again you snip, without answering, my query for why anyone should
ever believe you.

<unsnip yet again>

: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?

</unsnip>

So there must be no reason to expect that you understand any of the
relevant physics. You must be one of those "free thinker" types, a dime
a dozen here.  Also known as ko0ks or cranks.

As you may know if you read my earlier posts, I come here to be entertained
by watching all the ko0ks ko0k here, and poking them with a sharp stick to
get a reaction.  As ko0ks go, you aren't as entertaining as many others,
at least not to me, so I'll spend my entertainment time following them,
poking them and being entertained by them instead.  There are just too many
ko0ks to follow them all.  I may or may not come back to poke you once in
a while, no promises either way.  Perhaps someone else will come along to
use you as their chew toy.

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

#404541

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-08 09:41 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno742al.epg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#404523

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ned Latham writes:
> >Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Ned Latham 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.
>
> >What do you mean, "admit"? I never said, implied or hinted otherwise.
>
> Because you made a theory-based assertion,

Wrong. It's based on the core/cladding construction feature of all
optical fibres, and the observed fact of TIR in refractive substances
with a higher refractive indexs tham whatever surrounfs them..

> which you now claim is not evidence.

Not just now, liar.

> So once again you snip, without answering, my query for why anyone should
> ever believe you.

Try sticking to the point, you lying maggot.

----snip----

I note your continued avoidance of the issies you yourself brought
up. Do feel free to address them some time.

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

#403767

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2017-01-02 02:39 -0800
Message-ID	<c2d60bec-adee-4a3c-927e-feb0b8cf7c04@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#403734

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:36:43 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:

> > You see, in multimode fiber, the "fast" light (which is going straighter
> > so travels a shorter distance in the fiber) catches up with earlier "slow"
> > light which is traveling at a larger angle so it travels a longer distance.
> > This "smears" the data so it is no longer distinct on-off pulses.
> 
> You're babbling. Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive index
> of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from occurring, why do
> manufacturers build those fivres with cladding layers?

You are clearly conflating the several types of optical fiber.

Multimode step index fiber is used in short patch cables used to connect pieces 
of equipment on a single rack. Larger diameters of multimode fiber are used 
for transmission of raw power in medical and materials processing applications, 
as well as for sensing applications.

Gradient index fiber may be used to set up an optical fiber network in a single
building, i.e. local area networks. Compared with single mode fiber, the larger
diameter of gradient index fiber makes for easier hookups.

Single mode fiber is used for long distance communications.

Multimode and single mode fiber have a sharp and distinct boundary between core
and cladding.

Although there are variations in construction, the boundary between core and 
cladding in gradient index fiber is generally smooth and gradual.
http://www.fiberfin.com/index.php/pof-specifications/graded-index-fiber/

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

#403779

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-02 14:20 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6kocv.pu6.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403767

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >
> > > You see, in multimode fiber, the "fast" light (which is going
> > > straighter so travels a shorter distance in the fiber) catches
> > > up with earlier "slow" light which is traveling at a larger
> > > angle so it travels a longer distance. This "smears" the data
> > > so it is no longer distinct on-off pulses.
> >
> > You're babbling. Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive
> > index of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from
> > occurring, why do manufacturers build those fivres with cladding
> > layers?
>
> You are clearly conflating the several types of optical fiber.

Your intervention remaoms irrelevant. This is about the claom that
in single-node fibre "the light goes straight down the core".

Numerous persons have stated excplicitly that there are no TIRs in
single-mode fibre. The entire thrust pf the post you butchered for
your irrelevant babble is the question why do manufactureers spend
money and materials building sinhle-mode fibres with what those
persons' statements imply are superfluous cladding layers?

----snip----

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

#403821

From	< @ . >
Date	2017-01-02 21:53 +0000
Message-ID	<u4f4cd$5d1$7@rec.arts.unformed-spam-dagger>
In reply to	#403779

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

> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You see, in multimode fiber, the "fast" light (which is going
>>>> straighter so travels a shorter distance in the fiber) catches
>>>> up with earlier "slow" light which is traveling at a larger
>>>> angle so it travels a longer distance. This "smears" the data
>>>> so it is no longer distinct on-off pulses.
>>>
>>> You're babbling. Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive
>>> index of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from
>>> occurring, why do manufacturers build those fivres with cladding
>>> layers?
>>
>> You are clearly conflating the several types of optical fiber.
>
> Your intervention remaoms irrelevant. This is about the claom that
> in single-node fibre "the light goes straight down the core".
>
> Numerous persons have stated excplicitly that there are no TIRs in
> single-mode fibre. The entire thrust pf the post you butchered for
> your irrelevant babble is the question why do manufactureers spend
> money and materials building sinhle-mode fibres with what those
> persons' statements imply are superfluous cladding layers?

On the subject of "butchered ... babble"

> remaoms
> claom
> pf
> manufactureers
> sinhle-mode

HTH

-- 
The fellow that agrees with everything you say is either a fool or he
is getting ready to skin you; Kin Hubbard

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

#403837

From	& <ampersand.the.great@gmail.com>
Date	2017-01-02 17:09 -0500
Message-ID	<o4f3qi$at5$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#403821

On 01/02/2017 04:53 PM,   wrote:
> Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
>
>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You see, in multimode fiber, the "fast" light (which is
>>>>> going straighter so travels a shorter distance in the fiber)
>>>>> catches up with earlier "slow" light which is traveling at a
>>>>> larger angle so it travels a longer distance. This "smears"
>>>>> the data so it is no longer distinct on-off pulses.
>>>>
>>>> You're babbling. Try to explain this: if the graduated
>>>> refractive index of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt
>>>> TIRs from occurring, why do manufacturers build those fivres
>>>> with cladding layers?
>>>
>>> You are clearly conflating the several types of optical fiber.
>>
>> Your intervention remaoms irrelevant. This is about the claom that
>> in single-node fibre "the light goes straight down the core".
>>
>> Numerous persons have stated excplicitly that there are no TIRs in
>> single-mode fibre. The entire thrust pf the post you butchered for
>> your irrelevant babble is the question why do manufactureers spend
>> money and materials building sinhle-mode fibres with what those
>> persons' statements imply are superfluous cladding layers?
>
> On the subject of "butchered ... babble"
>
>> remaoms claom pf manufactureers sinhle-mode
>
> HTH
>

all crap

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

#403834

From	Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
Date	2017-01-03 01:57 +0000
Message-ID	<slrno6m194.b52.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>
In reply to	#403779

Ned Latham wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You see, in multimode fiber, the "fast" light (which is going
> > > > straighter so travels a shorter distance in the fiber) catches
> > > > up with earlier "slow" light which is traveling at a larger
> > > > angle so it travels a longer distance. This "smears" the data
> > > > so it is no longer distinct on-off pulses.
> > >
> > > You're babbling. Try to explain this: if the graduated refractive
> > > index of a single-mode fibre really does prevebt TIRs from
> > > occurring, why do manufacturers build those fivres with cladding
> > > layers?
> >
> > You are clearly conflating the several types of optical fiber.

----typoes cirrected for the smiliterate----

> Your intervention remains irrelevant. This is about the claim that
> in single-node fibre "the light goes straight down the core".
>
> Numerous persons have stated excplicitly that there are no TIRs in
> single-mode fibre. The entire thrust pf the post you butchered for
> your irrelevant babble is the question why do manufacturers spend
> money and materials building single-mode fibres with what those
> persons' statements imply are superfluous cladding layers?

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

Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 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

#403734

#403741

#403765

#403848

#403857

#403869

#403884

#404074

#404103

#404428

#404429

#404542

#404432

#404523

#404541

#403767

#403779

#403821

#403837

#403834