SamTherapy opened this issue on Dec 27, 2009 · 81 posts
SamTherapy posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 10:14 PM
A little experiment for you:
You have a torch and a mirror. You place the mirror on one wall of a room which is, say 10 ft sq. You place the torch, facing the mirror, at the opposite side of the room. You and a friend stand, one to the left and one to the right of the mirror, looking towards it so that, when you look in, you can see the reflection of the torch beam shining in there.
Gonna digress a little to explain that a more refined version of this experiment (and several variations thereof) have been performed with lasers in black rooms with near as dammit optically perfect reflectors, photon emittors, sensors and heaven knows what. For this, though, you really don't need 'em.
Right, so now you're looking in the mirror and you see the reflection, ok? To you, it's in a relatively different place from your friend, due to the fact he/she is standing at the opposite side. That's perfectly normal and straightforward because that's what you expect. All is as it should be.
We were all taught that there's such a thing as a "virtual image", which accounts for the position of a reflected image, as if it was an object in true 3D space. Sad thing is, that's not the case. It's a convenient fiction - and it's become quite recently demonstrably so - that skips over what's really happening when we see a reflection.
You see, there is no "virtual image" because there's no 3D space inside the mirror. The reflections are all happening on a plane surface with absolutely no depth. Which means, amongst other things, you are getting two reflections for the price of one. You can only see one at a time but they are there. Your friend will confirm the presence of the other one. Change positions to check if you like but it'll be there. Which is impossible, since there is only one light source and there's nothing else to reflect off. Oh dear, a fundamental part of our understanding just rolled over and died.
Now, someone is going to come back and say something like "quantum" or "Heisenberg" and I'm going to say "nope" because quantum stuff and the uncertainty principle aren't supposed to apply to the macro universe and if they do, the theories themselves are in need of some serious revision. Don't even bother to mention superposition because that's a hotly disputed and largely anecdotal hypothesis and string/superstring is pretty much discredited and/or disregarded.
Anyone who posts a like to the Superscience show will be tarred, feathered, laughed at and generally become the object of scorn and ridicule for the rest of their lives.
I bet BB has a shader for it, though. 
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
ptrope posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 10:38 PM
WTF are you talking about, Sam?
I don't know where you got this idea of a 'virtual image' or where you think it is 'debunked' by whatever physics you think applies here. I do see some serious fundamental flaws in your premise and so-called experiment, however.
What you see in a reflection doesn't occur at the flat plane of the mirror (assuming a hypothetical perfect mirror, of course). Think of the mirror in the same way you think of a piece of optically-perfect glass between you and what you're looking at. If the glass is 10' in front of you and what you see is 10' beyond it, your focus is at 20' as your eyes both mechanically fix on the subject and your brain assembles what they see into a single, coherent image; you're not looking at the image as it 'projects' onto the piece of glass. The same situation occurs with the mirror, but instead of sitting physically between your eyes and the subject, with a straight line of sight between both, the mirror sits at a point which is virtually 10' between your eyes and a subject 10' beyond it in a straight line; all the mirror does is reflect every photon at the opposite angle of incidence from which it strikes. You're not seeing any 'virtual image'; you're seeing an image just as real as if you were looking through a piece of invisible glass, but instead of seeing it directly, the line of sight is bent by the mirror; with the hypothetical perfect mirror, you never see anything at the plane of the mirror.
There is no quantum physics necessary here; good ol' normal physics blows the wind out of this sail :).
Khai-J-Bach posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 10:42 PM
I (may/may not) blame Schrödinger
Miss Nancy posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 10:44 PM
yeah, not only that, but they aren't front-surface mirrors in most domiclles. they've got the back silvered or aluminised so it don't get scratched when one polishes the front, which is a piece of clear glass of finite thickness. in case anybody asks.
dphoadley posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 10:55 PM
Sam, I think you need to lay off the extra glass of Port after dinner!
-or soon you'll be as maudlin as I am!
dph
SamTherapy posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 10:58 PM
I love a discussion. Even if everyone thinks I'm wrong I still love it. :biggrin:
Anyhow, I'm talking about a mirror with the reflective surface right at the front, such as a highly polished piece of metal or a sheet of silver plastic stretched over a frame. Or even - if we want to get daft - mercury suspended in an antigravity field.
ptrope - you are absolutely right. And wrong. I assure you that's true at the quantum level. My experiment (actually it's not mine but there you go) is a gross simplification of the laser/black room experiment. Both show surprisingly similar results. The refined experiment is extremely disturbing because it pokes a big hole in everything we believed about reality. It can be shown - every time without fail - for every photon emitted, you get two or more back, depending on the number of observers. Which is absolutely impossible.
What makes it worse is, it appears to be more or less reproducible on a gross level.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
NoelCan posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 11:04 PM
I think I will continue to juggle *Schrödingers Cat - Occam's Razor and a running chainsaw..
When I finish amusing Myself in this manner I will put everything away inside Pandora's Box..
SamTherapy posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 11:16 PM
Quote - Sam, I think you need to lay off the extra glass of Port after dinner!
-or soon you'll be as maudlin as I am!
dph
Port, David?
Dear me, no. Only with Stilton and walnuts, if you please. Right now it's strictly a glass of single malt and a pot of strong tea.
And yes, I can take my drink; I'm a Sheffield Lad.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
ptrope posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 11:26 PM
I see what you're saying, Sam, and assuming what you're calling a "torch" I call a "flashlight," I don't see any contradiction to common sense or common (or even quantum!) physics. Same goes for if one were to use a tightly-focused laser and even a hypothetical perfect mirror. The observer sees a beam of light that is reflected exactly opposite the incident beam. If the observer sees the light, no matter where in the room he stands, it's because the source emitted that beam at an angle where such a view was possible, and if one removed the mirror and placed the observer along the incidental line, at the same distance beyond where the mirror was that he stood before it, he would see exactly the same thing, only reversed. It's not a matter of the mirror giving back a two-fer - the light existed before it ever struck the mirror or else it would not - could not - be observed (neither in a plane nor on a train :-)). If one had a perfectly-focused laser, and a perfect mirror, an observer not in the line of sight would not see the laser, period. If, however, he sees the torch/flashlight, it's because the light source created stray beams of light that followed the incidental path to his eye that was intercepted by the mirror.
The big problem is that we really can't do this experiment because "near as dammit perfect" isn't good enough to prevent either stray reflections or stray emissions from the source.
The offshoot of this concept, though, is that if you have a 'perfectly' mirrored sphere with a light source inside it, the reflections of the light should continue after the light source is removed. I wonder if you could create a solid ball of light this way? :-)
SamTherapy posted Sun, 27 December 2009 at 11:38 PM
Yup. Torch/flashlight. Primitive, us Brits. :)
Hmm, that's not too far removed from the concept of creating a laser, really. Bouncing an in phase signal inside a reflective medium then releasing it when it reaches a certain level.
Your idea would still need an origin light source, though. Something to get the ball rolling, as it were. After that, however. Nah, too good to be true. BTW, read Gene Wolfe's "Shadow of the Torturer" series for more on that idea.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
dphoadley posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 12:44 AM
Quote - > Quote - Sam, I think you need to lay off the extra glass of Port after dinner!
-or soon you'll be as maudlin as I am!
dphPort, David?
Dear me, no. Only with Stilton and walnuts, if you please. Right now it's strictly a glass of single malt and a pot of strong tea.
And yes, I can take my drink; I'm a Sheffield Lad.
I was raised as a teetotalling Christian Scientist, before converting to Judaism, so I never really got into the habit of serious drinking. I did learn to swig Arak from my Father-in Law though, who grew up in Aleppo Syria, before being deported to Turkey 1956 for Zionist activity.
dph
Lucifer_The_Dark posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 2:49 AM
Quote - I (may/may not) blame Schrödinger
The cat escaped when Schrodinger wasn't looking. ;)
Windows 7 64Bit
Poser Pro 2010 SR1
dphoadley posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 3:04 AM
pjz99 posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 3:39 AM
a notorious cat-murderer
dphoadley posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 3:52 AM
Quote - a notorious cat-murderer
Is it really possible to murder a cat? (-as opposed to simply killing it?)
dph
LaurieA posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 7:04 AM
The cat is dead. No, wait! - it's alive. It's both???!!
My brain hurts Mr. Schrödinger. But please don't hurt the kitty ;o).
dph - the above mentioned was a scientist and you can read about him and the cat here if you're interested ;o).
Physics and Quantum Physics especially intrigue me. Even if I don't understand a damn thing...lol.
Laurie
TZORG posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 8:22 AM
I don't think you need a mirror to do this experiment? Just take some object, like a monitor [or anything, maybe a book would've been clearer], have you and a friend stand in different places viewing it at different angles. You can both see it right?
It's not the tool used, it's the tool using it
dphoadley posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 8:45 AM
Quote - The cat is dead. No, wait! - it's alive. It's both???!!
My brain hurts Mr. Schrödinger. But please don't hurt the kitty ;o).
dph - the above mentioned was a scientist and you can read about him and the cat here if you're interested ;o).
Physics and Quantum Physics especially intrigue me. Even if I don't understand a damn thing...lol.
Laurie
Read the article in part, and then became dizzy! Holy Moses! Some people really DO think waaaaaaaaaaay toooooooooooooooooo much!
dph
kawecki posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 9:23 AM
First at all beams or rays doesn't exist, it only are abstract geometric constructions that allow you in an easy way how and where images are formed in mirros (planar or curved) and lenses (virtual or real images).
In geometric optics any point emitis infineite rays in all infinite directions. If you know the path of two particular rays the point where it intersects all other rays will intersect too forming the image point, real or virtual and virtual is also an abstraction.
Rays are only tools, real light is much more complicated because light can be a particle (photon) or a wave and you have to apply Newton's or Huyghens theory of light depending on the case and it doen't matter if you use a laser or a torch, you must use both theories. With lasers the wave nature of light becomes more evident.
The Huyghens principle states that any point of the wavefront that hits a point of an object turns into a wave emiter.
It is more easier to uses photons than try to reconstruct wavefronts, but in many cases is not possible.
People that speaks about Quantics speak on photons, but forget or ignore that Qunatics itself is a wave theory, photons only apply when you deal with particles, real or an abstraction to make our lives easier.
Einstein's Relativity theory is an particle theory where all wave and electromagnetic theory is ignored.
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 9:26 AM
pakled posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 10:53 AM
all I know is the inverse square law affects light emission, and the albedo of the mirror affects reflection....;)
I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit
anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)
kawecki posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 12:07 PM
Not so easy, the inverse square law only applies to spherical waves (omnidirectional lights).
For spot lights doesn't work and for ideal directional lights (plane waves) ignoring dispersion, have no attenuation at all.
Stupidity also evolves!
Khai-J-Bach posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 12:12 PM
Quote - The cat is dead. No, wait! - it's alive. It's both???!!
My brain hurts Mr. Schrödinger. But please don't hurt the kitty ;o).
dph - the above mentioned was a scientist and you can read about him and the cat here if you're interested ;o).
Physics and Quantum Physics especially intrigue me. Even if I don't understand a damn thing...lol.
Laurie
no no
the cat in the box is in 3 states during the experiment.
Alive
Dead
Bloody Furious
SamTherapy posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 8:51 PM
Quote - I don't think you need a mirror to do this experiment? Just take some object, like a monitor [or anything, maybe a book would've been clearer], have you and a friend stand in different places viewing it at different angles. You can both see it right?
Yes, you can.
Here's where the whole thing breaks down, though...
Refine the experiment, as I hinted at earlier. Replace the flashlight/torch with a laser set to emit a single photon. Now, according to Relativity, there is only one photon, which will hit the mirror and bounce back toward somewhere or other. Let's assume there's a random direction it would bounce to (there are several complex reasons why it isn't random but they don't matter for the moment) In which case, being a single photon and not necessarily bouncing in the direction of either viewer, they have a less than 50% chance of seeing it, right? Wrong. Both viewers (or as many as you want) will see the photon, no matter what you do.
Now, remember, you're not seeing an image of a photon, you are seeing a real, genuine photon. Added together, that's more than you put into the system in the first place, by at least double.
Now, that's what I mean about weird. :)
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
dphoadley posted Mon, 28 December 2009 at 11:39 PM
Now I'm seeing triple Butterflies!
The Butterflies that are there,
The Butterflies that are not there,
& the Butterflies that I only imagine that are there!
Someone pour me a glass of Arak, PLEEEEEEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dph
kawecki posted Tue, 29 December 2009 at 12:16 AM
Quote - set to emit a single photon. Now, according to Relativity, there is only one photon,
You said Relativity and here is the problem. Relativity ignores Quantics, Electromagnetism and the wave nature of light.
A single "photon" can pass through two holes at the same time and worst!.... an electron also can do it!
Relativity is a limited theory with a limited scope of application. A simple phenomena as difraction of light is impossible to happen for Relativity.
And Yes, God do play dice and Devil can do even worst things...
Stupidity also evolves!
SamTherapy posted Tue, 29 December 2009 at 12:23 AM
Quote - > Quote - set to emit a single photon. Now, according to Relativity, there is only one photon,
You said Relativity and here is the problem. Relativity ignores Quantics, Electromagnetism and the wave nature of light.
A single "photon" can pass through two holes at the same time and worst!.... an electron also can do it!
Relativity is a limited theory with a limited scope of application. A simple phenomena as difraction of light is impossible to happen for Relativity.And Yes, God do play dice and Devil can do even worst things...
And there, young sir, you have it all. 
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
raven posted Tue, 29 December 2009 at 11:16 AM
Attached Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8363930.stm
Here's an interesting thing regarding light photons and quantum mechanics. Well worth watching! :)
TZORG posted Tue, 29 December 2009 at 3:20 PM
Quote - In which case, being a single photon and not necessarily bouncing in the direction of either viewer, they have a less than 50% chance of seeing it, right? Wrong. Both viewers (or as many as you want) will see the photon, no matter what you do.
This part I don't understand. It seems impossible to me that both people will see the photon.
It's not the tool used, it's the tool using it
kawecki posted Tue, 29 December 2009 at 5:08 PM
If you think the photon as a particle it looks impossible, but if you think as a wave there is no problem, just look in water how behaves any wave, it goes everywhere.
A photon is not necessarly a particle, what is a photon?
1- A wave carry some amount of energy.
2- Was discovered by Plank, the begining of Quantics, that energy cannot have any arbitrary value.
3- Energy increases in discretes steps and not in a continuous way.
4- The total energy is an integer multiple of the step energy.
5- This minimum step is a quanta.
6- In light or any wave this minimun value of energy, step or quanta is called a photon.
7- So the total energy of a wave is an integer multiple of the energy of a photon.
What is defined is the energy of the photon and is E = h.f where h is the Plank's constant and f is the frequency
If you consider a photon as a particle you can assign it mass and momentun in a indirect way through the relationships E = mc2 and P = m.c
Nothing strange with photons, light is normally assumed to be a wave and in most cases with some few exceptions behaves as a wave.
Strange things happens with electrons that normally are assumed to be particles, but is some cases behaves as a wave.
Stupidity also evolves!
Klebnor posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 8:30 AM
Now hang on just a minute.
If you call a flashlight a torch, then what do you call those bright thingies the townfolk carry up to the castle when the good Doctor has let his creature out for a stroll in the village?
You know ... they look like rags wrapped around the ends of stout sticks, soaked in some flammable liquid and lit on fire so as to illuminate their immediate surroundings.
By what colloquialism do you refer to such appliances?
Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device. Beige horizontal case. I don't display my unit.
dphoadley posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 9:39 AM
Khai-J-Bach posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 9:45 AM
Quote - Now hang on just a minute.
If you call a flashlight a torch, then what do you call those bright thingies the townfolk carry up to the castle when the good Doctor has let his creature out for a stroll in the village?
You know ... they look like rags wrapped around the ends of stout sticks, soaked in some flammable liquid and lit on fire so as to illuminate their immediate surroundings.
By what colloquialism do you refer to such appliances?
a Torch.
same name.
Klebnor posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 10:47 AM
Quote - > Quote - Now hang on just a minute.
If you call a flashlight a torch, then what do you call those bright thingies the townfolk carry up to the castle when the good Doctor has let his creature out for a stroll in the village?
You know ... they look like rags wrapped around the ends of stout sticks, soaked in some flammable liquid and lit on fire so as to illuminate their immediate surroundings.
By what colloquialism do you refer to such appliances?
a Torch.
same name.
Really?
What linguistic poverty ... to be forced to use the same name for entirely different things, with radically different fuel sources and shapes, not to mention heat and light outputs. It's just a shame.
Why, that would be like using a verb as a noun to describe something ... when a perfectly good noun exists. As if one said "lift" to mean elevator. Imagine that!
I'll tell you what. Inasmuch as you've quit taxing our tea, we'll henceforth allow you to use both flashlight and elevator.
Magnanimous, ain't we?
Klebnor (Corresponding from the north Atlantic colonies)
Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device. Beige horizontal case. I don't display my unit.
scanmead posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 1:16 PM
I'm not getting what needs explaining here. That two people can see the same light source? Lost here.
SamTherapy posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 6:08 PM
Nup. Two people can see the reflection of the light source. The standard explanation goes on about "virtual images" and so forth, which is, in fact, total bollocks.
It may not seem so odd if you think about a standard source of illumination such as a torch/flashlight but when you substitute that for a pulsing lazer emitting a single photon, then yes, it is quite odd.
Kawecki's post regarding photons as probably being waves is the best explanation science has come up with yet but it's not entirely satisfactory since the brightest minds in physics aren't sure exactly what a photon is. Sometimes it's a particle, sometimes it's a wave.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
dphoadley posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 11:16 PM
Quote - Nup. Two people can see the reflection of the light source. The standard explanation goes on about "virtual images" and so forth, which is, in fact, total bollocks.
It may not seem so odd if you think about a standard source of illumination such as a torch/flashlight but when you substitute that for a pulsing lazer emitting a single photon, then yes, it is quite odd.
Kawecki's post regarding photons as probably being waves is the best explanation science has come up with yet but it's not entirely satisfactory since the brightest minds in physics aren't sure exactly what a photon is. Sometimes it's a particle, sometimes it's a wave.
And just HOW many angles CAN dance on the head of a pin??????
SamTherapy posted Wed, 30 December 2009 at 11:24 PM
Quote -
And just HOW many angles CAN dance on the head of a pin??????
Angles?
Well, assuming we're using integers here and assuming the pin head is a hemisphere, you can get 180 * 360, last time I looked.
If, however, you mean angels, well, the answer is as many as you believe. So, it could be infinite, which is problematic, since infinity cannot exist in the physical universe. In my case, I'd say none at all 'cause I don't believe they exist.
However, they are big lads, far as I remember. Giant sized guys with flaming swords and all that. So perhaps it would have to be a bloody big pin.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 1:18 AM
Actually, that was supposed to Angles (as opposed to Saxons), not angles, dancing on the head of that virtual pin. And if two people are observing the pin from two different angles, how many Angles would the actually see? And would the results by any chance be dependant on either the past or present population of Anglesey, Anglesea, Anglesea Island, or East Anglia?
And would there by any chance be a doppelgänger effect consisting of pins dancing on the heads of Angles?
Just some thoughts on the matter. And finally, is there really such a thing as Matter?
dph
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 2:05 AM
Something wrong with "angels with flaming swords", someone did a mistake in the translation, it should has been "angels with flaming clubs".
In Bible times there were no swords, swords only appeared during Middle Age.
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 5:25 AM
From the above article in Wikipedia: Bronze Age collapse
"Changes in warfare
Robert Drews argues[12]that the appearance of massed infantry, using newly developed weapons and armor, such as cast rather than forged spearheads and long swords, a revolutionizing cut-and-thrust weapon,[13]and javelins, and the appearance of bronze foundries, suggest "that mass production of bronze artifacts was suddenly important in the Aegean". (For example, Homer uses "spears" as a virtual synonym for "warrior", suggesting the continued importance of the spear in combat.) Such new weaponry, furnished to a proto-hoplite model of infantry which was able to withstand attacks of massed chariotry, would destabilize states that were based upon the use of chariots by the ruling class and precipitate an abrupt social collapse as raiders and/or infantry mercenaries began to conquer, loot, and burn the cities.[14][1][2]"
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 5:39 AM
Attached Link: Hoplite
*"Hoplites also carried a short sword called a* *[*xiphos*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiphos "Xiphos")**. The short sword was a secondary weapon, used if and when their spears were broken or lost, or if the phalanx broke rank. When the enemy retreated, hoplites might drop their shield and spear, and pursue the enemy with their swords. The xiphos usually has a blade around 2 feet long, however those used by the Spartans were often only 12-18 inches long. This very short xiphos would be very advantageous in the press that occurred when two lines of hoplites met, capable of being thrust through gaps in the shieldwall into an enemy's unprotected groin or throat, while there was no room to swing a longer sword. Such a small weapon would be particularly useful after many hoplites had started to abandon body armor during the* [*Pelopponesian War*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelopponesian_War "Pelopponesian War")*. Hoplites could also alternatively carry the curved* [*kopis*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopis "Kopis")*, a particularly vicious hacking weapon, and Spartan hoplites were often depicted using this instead of the xiphos in Athenian art, the kopis being a quintessential "bad guys" weapon in Greek eyes.**By contrast with hoplites, other contemporary infantry (e.g.* [*Persian*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire "Achaemenid Empire")*) tended to wear relatively light armour, use wicker shields, and were armed with shorter spears,* [*javelins*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javelin "Javelin")*, and* [*bows*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_%28weapon%29 "Bow (weapon)")*.*Hoplite warfare has been portrayed (with varying accuracy) in several films including Troy, The 300 Spartans and 300. Several strategy games, such as Rise of Nations, Rome: Total War, Spartan Total Warrior, Civilization (series), Ancient Wars: Sparta, Age of Empires and Age of Mythology, feature infantry units called 'Hoplites' or Phalanx."
Khai-J-Bach posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 5:40 AM
Quote - Something wrong with "angels with flaming swords", someone did a mistake in the translation, it should has been "angels with flaming clubs".
In Bible times there were no swords, swords only appeared during Middle Age.
so what were the Romans using? harsh language?
the Gladius is a sword for example. infact Gladius is a Latin word for sword.
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 6:01 AM
Romans didn't have swords, the gladius is not a sword, is a long knife used as secondary weapon. The primary weapon was the pillum ( a pike).
The Roman or Latin name for sword is spatia and not gladius.
The spatia even knwon and taken from the Iberians had no practical use as a weapon, because a sword without steel is useless and easily breaks in the first combat.
The sword as a weapon only appeared with the Saracens and were improved by the Spanish, the first swords were from Damasco and later from Toledo.
Even so, in the begining were very rare and legendary, (excalibur, the sword of the Cid, etc). It was very dificult to find or make a sword that had a primitive steel, were very expensive, so only a grand grand lord could afford it, it were useless and broke easily, so the weapons used by the soldiers remained to be the classical pikes, clubs, hammers, axes.
Only in the 16th century swords become the main weapon for Spanish soldiers together with ballistas and primitive guns.
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 7:30 AM
Question: When does a knife cease to be a knife and become a sword?
Answer: When certain Rendo' Forum members agree & say it does!
gladius (genitive gladiī); m, second declension
Number Singular Plural nominative gladius gladiī genitive gladiī gladiōrum dative gladiō gladiīs accusative gladium gladiōs ablative gladiō gladiīs vocative gladie gladiī#### [edit] Synonyms
Pity, the Gladiators who fought each other with a Gladius**** had to be satisfied that their weapons were long knives rather than swords. Does that mean that they were any less efficient at killing?
And maybe the Flaming Swords that the Cherubim כרובים at the Gates of Gan Eden held aloft were Flaming Long Knives rather than a Swords, but either way, the Hebrew word in Genesis 3, verse 24, חרב, refers to a Bladed Weapon rather than a Blunt One.
dph
Khai-J-Bach posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 8:01 AM
all those history books, museums, archeologists that are wrong.... however did they make that mistake!
once again it's useless to argue the point..
going to do something more productive instead.
swordman10 posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 9:28 AM
Quote - Romans didn't have swords, the gladius is not a sword, is a long knife used as secondary weapon. The primary weapon was the pillum ( a pike).
The Roman or Latin name for sword is spatia and not gladius.
The spatia even knwon and taken from the Iberians had no practical use as a weapon, because a sword without steel is useless and easily breaks in the first combat.
The sword as a weapon only appeared with the Saracens and were improved by the Spanish, the first swords were from Damasco and later from Toledo.
Even so, in the begining were very rare and legendary, (excalibur, the sword of the Cid, etc). It was very dificult to find or make a sword that had a primitive steel, were very expensive, so only a grand grand lord could afford it, it were useless and broke easily, so the weapons used by the soldiers remained to be the classical pikes, clubs, hammers, axes.
Only in the 16th century swords become the main weapon for Spanish soldiers together with ballistas and primitive guns.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong...
Klebnor posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 10:07 AM
Well, you may call a Gladius a long knife, but I don't think the Gauls of 56 BC, who were gutted with them by Ceasar's legion, would have called them knives. If the Gladius is not a sword, why is a Gladiolus a small sword? And if it's a knife, what is a Pugio? (I know, a dagger - which is another word for knife).
It will come as some surprise to most scholars of ancient metallurgy that the Romans were unable to make steel.
Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device. Beige horizontal case. I don't display my unit.
Klebnor posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 10:08 AM
And, by the way, what's all this about swords ... this thread is about torches !!!
Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device. Beige horizontal case. I don't display my unit.
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 11:44 AM
Quote - And, by the way, what's all this about swords ... this thread is about torches !!!
From Flashlight to Torch to Flaming Sword to Long Bladed Knife!
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 12:39 PM
If gladius is a sword what the Hell is spatia?!
The name gladiator derives from gladius and they were not spatiators.
Gladiators were a bloody version of modern box, it was a sport and entertainment, a body to body combat with close range weapons amd without or with very light armor.
Quote - Well, you may call a Gladius a long knife, but I don't think the Gauls of 56 BC, who were gutted with them by Ceasar's legion, would have called them knives.
David killed Goliath with a sling, so a sling is also a weapon that can kill you.
The Gauls were defeated not because that Roman had gladius, the Gauls were defeated because they had not the patience, politics and strategy that Caesar had.
The strenght of Romans was not because they had a long knife, it was due militar formations with shields and a strong defense with long pikes as attack weapon (not body to body combat) helped with long range weapons as bows and the temible catapults that were very effective.
Every American soldiers has a long knife in his equipment, you are not going to tell me that Marines are so poverful because they have gladius.
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 12:49 PM
And a Rose by any other name stinks just the same!
spatha (plural spathas)
http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Attack.html
dph
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 12:55 PM
"David killed Goliath with a sling, so a sling is also a weapon that can kill you."
And THEN he took Goliath's sword and chopped off his head.
dph
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 1:22 PM
First at all what is a sword?
I am speaking about the sword as an effective weapon used in real war combat, so forget sports, collectionists, rpg games, Hollywood and Discovery Channel.
A sword is a light, long, thin and very sharp blade with a handle. It is used to cut bodies and armors into pieces without having body to body contact.
The proble is with what material build a one or more neter long thin and very sharp blade?
The only material that can fullfil this requirement is steel.
Iron is strong, but it is not flexible and can break easily. Is impossible to make a long thin blade with iron that doesn't break at the first hit on something hard.
Bronze, even more older than iron, is more effective for a sword. Bronze is stronger and more difficult to break. Cannons were made of bronze and not of iron. You only can find small cannons made of iron, a bigger iron cannon you never can find one, it exploded at the firat shot!
The problem with bronze is that the other guys have shields and armor made of iron and you cannot break or trespasse an iron shield or armor with bronze.
The conception of the sword is simple, even a cave man could have the idea and tried to do it. Any kid makes a sword with a piece of wood. Through time many peoples and civilizations had the same idea and made it in several ways, archeologists can find many, and Discovery Channels tells you the story and Hollywood makes the movie.
The question is simple, these "swords" had any use in real war and not Hollywood?
Without steel there is not a sword, it is only an ornament or something for sports.
A simple big club is much more effective, cheap and secure than a sword that is not made of steel. No soldier would be stupid enough, even soldiers are stupid, to go to combat with a weapon that had only few minutes of use. An who used one never was able to tell you the strory, he never returned from the battle.
No steel == No sword.
Stupidity also evolves!
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 1:26 PM
Quote - And THEN he took Goliath's sword and chopped off his head.
You see the Bible tells you that.
The time when the David vs Goliath battle happened there were no Romans, no gladius, even Greeks with their bronze weapons have not existed yet
Stupidity also evolves!
Khai-J-Bach posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 1:51 PM
gentlemen, we cannot prove Kawecki wrong since he will not under any circumstances listen. it is useless to debate him as history has proven time and time again. facts, history etc mean nothing to him.
just walk away gentlemen and don't play his game.
(this is not an attack or trolling but simple observed fact)
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 1:51 PM
"You see the Bible tells you that.
The time when the David vs Goliath battle happened there were no Romans, no gladius, even Greeks with their bronze weapons have not existed yet"
Yes, but then I trust the Hebrew Bible as a source of Historical documentation. Living in the land of its Historic Roots has taught that there is much more truth to what is written within than most European Sceptics think.
BTW, bronze as a tool maker was already in use during the time of Abraham the Patriarch, 700 years before the reigns of King Saul and King David.
dph
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 2:39 PM
Some curiosities.
Have you seen that in the movies Greeks, Persians, Babilonians, Egypcians use the same weapons, the same armor and the same uniforms. Even the Incas do it with some feathers added!
And the Romans... Everyone knows very well the Roman uniform, the breast plate, nude arms and the short shirts and sandals, something very effective for the Galia nd Germany campain with 15 or 20 degree Celsius below zero and don't forget that time to time Rome is also covered with snow, very good for senator's togas and sandals....
Some curiosity from the Bible.
There is a part that tells something like this: "... and the bear will eat together with the lambs"
Some questions. Have existed bears in ancient Israel or Palestina? Does it mean that the bear will eat grass? And before the bear was pacified it ate lambs?
And Daniel in the lion's cave!, of course lion is and must be a very dangerous and aggressive beast.
The question is, from where the Hell lions appeared there?, have escaped from a Roman circus, perhaps?
And something to meditate. Have you considered that lions and other beasts used in the Roman circus were trained pets and not hungry savage beasts?
Think well, the circus was a show for people as TV is today....
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 3:01 PM
No, but I've read the Five Books of Moses in the original Hebrew, the book of Joshua & Judges, and also the both Books of Kings. The ancient Israelites, Canaanites, Jeubusites, and Phoenicians knew what bronze was.
dph
PS: Since you're asking so many questions, could you answer this one for me? Who the heck is Grendel, and from where did he come from?
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 3:11 PM
Grendel? Who or what is he/she/it ?
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 3:15 PM
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 3:18 PM
I just read in Wikipedia. I didn't know the tale. The only thing that knew about Beowulf is that is a movie that I have not watched yet, probably shall like it.
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 3:29 PM
Beowulf is an Old English heroic epic poem of unknown authorship, dating as recorded in the Nowell Codex manuscript from between the 8th[1][2] and the early 11th century,[3] set in Denmark and Sweden. Commonly cited as one of the most important works of Anglo-Saxon literature, Beowulf has been the subject of much scholarly study, theory, speculation, discourse, and, at 3182 lines, has been noted for its length.
In the poem, Beowulf, a hero of the Geats, battles three antagonists: Grendel, who has been attacking the resident warriors of a mead hall called Heorot in Denmark; Grendel's mother; and an unnamed dragon. The last battle takes place later in life, after returning to Geatland (modern southern Sweden), where Beowulf has become king. In the final battle, Beowulf is fatally wounded. After his death his retainers bury him in a tumulus in Geatland.
kawecki posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 3:38 PM
I know very little about Saxon literature and most of it from movies, in other words, I know nothing and the few that I know is wrong.
Stupidity also evolves!
SamTherapy posted Thu, 31 December 2009 at 5:09 PM
We had a flaming club round here once. The owner had a disagreement with a local gang.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
kawecki posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 2:30 AM
An angel with a flaming club didn't look very nice when you had knights, magic excalibur, lord and kings and cavalry with nice swords.
Well,.. today an angel with a flaming sword and horsemen looks very ridiculous and primitive too.
Don't worry, soon history will repeat itself one more time and so you will read:
"Angels with flaming AK-47 riding an IED-resistant vehicle"
And why not, "Angel throwing a flaming photon torpedo"
You see, we've returned to the photon again, life is a circle...
Stupidity also evolves!
dphoadley posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 3:33 AM
"Angels with flaming AK-47 riding an IED-resistant vehicle"
And why not, "Angel throwing a flaming photon torpedo"
You wouldn't be referring to the motorcycle gang 'Hell's Angels' would you?
dph
HeWhoWatches posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 3:39 AM
Mirrors have always disturbed me, even from a young age. Of course, at that age my misgivings were entirely intuitive, but I've since come to understand the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings of my unease.
Consider what you're seeing "in the mirror." We create representational reality (to use Kantian language) from our sense perceptions, interpreted through schema created from our experience and induction. When we look at another person, the reality of that person can be placed in that external person (that is, the person-in-himself, again using Kantian terminology) through our understanding that we can assume the existence of knowledge based on certain axiomatic assumptions which must be true in order for knowledge itself to exist -- which was the point of the CoPR.
Good so far.
The problem comes when I look in a mirror and see myself. I am very clearly not seeing me, since I am aware, when I am perceiving the qualia from the mirrors reflection, that I am not present in the mirror. What, then, is the reality of the mirror -- that is, the dasein (to use Heidegger's term) of the person I'm perceiving? The frightening conclusion is that I am literally perceiving the alienated self, the existential doppelganger. I am astounded that people use mirrors every day, that they have them all over their homes without the slightest qualm, despite the terrible alien presence within them. To look into the mirror is to come quite literally face to face with some of the most horrible existential verities of our existence.
kawecki posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 5:07 AM
Mirrors atract thunder, so when there is a storm you must cover all the mirrors in your house.
(I am using the language of people from the country, here...)
Stupidity also evolves!
SamTherapy posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 9:26 AM
SamTherapy posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 9:31 AM
@ HeWHo Watches -
If it's any consolation there is now solid scientific evidence that mirrors (or at least the image therein) can be distinguished from "reality", due to the discovery of a subatonic particle which can only exist in one version (for the sake of argument, consider it a "right handed" particle). Therefore, since the left handed version cannot exist in nature, a detailed analysis of a reflection would reveal its true nature.
If it's citations and references you want to verify this, check out "The God Particle - the search for the Higg's Boson".
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
kawecki posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 9:34 AM
Left handed particle is demoniac.
Stupidity also evolves!
kawecki posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 9:44 AM
God created the light and Devil made the darkness.
As 95% of the matter in the Universe is dark matter the Universe is ruled by Lucifer.
Stupidity also evolves!
HeWhoWatches posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 1:21 PM
Quote - God created the light and Devil made the darkness.
As 95% of the matter in the Universe is dark matter the Universe is ruled by Lucifer.
If anything it's the other way around. Lucifer means "light-bringer." Lucifer is actually a heroic figure, and is celebrated in every religion except christianity -- the only ones who celebrate ignorance. The light-bringer figure is the one who brings fire (that is, power and knowledge) to humanity by stealing it from the gods, and is punished by the gods for doing so. The Greeks had the titan Prometheus, the First Nations had Coyote, et al. Humanity, according to Genesis, were created deliberately ignorant and condemned to be Yahweh's contented lapdogs for all eternity until the Serpent convinced them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Interestingly, this isn't why Yahweh cast humanity out of the Garden:
*And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." * [Genesis 3:22 NIV]
In other words, the Serpent convinced humanity to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and now Yahweh is worried that with this knowledge they may make themselves gods in their own right by becoming immortal and as great as he. The Serpent is humanity's saviour, and is punished like Prometheus by being cast into the Lake of Fire to burn for all eternity.
(Interestingly, Jesus refers to himself as the "Morningstar," one of Lucifer's titles. The Gnostic interpretation of the Bible is that Yahweh is actually quite an evil entity, and that he's merely a groundskeeper for the true Creator -- who will one day return and be mighty pissed to discover Yahweh has been populating the Earth with these nasty little human things made in Yahweh's flawed and brutish image. As support for this the Gnostics note that Genesis uses two different terms for "God": the first creates the heavens and the Earth, while the second -- that is, the "Voice of God" -- goes walking in the Garden. This second would be Yahweh, the Demi-Urge, and the one against whom Lucifer rebels, saving humanity from him.)
kawecki posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 1:39 PM
Yahweh is a demiurg that thinks he is God.
"Voice of God" I liked it, something like Bush?...
Stupidity also evolves!
kawecki posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 2:09 PM
Stupidity also evolves!
Boni posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 5:58 PM
Hmmmm. Don't want to get into a theology discussion. Sam ... as far as mirrors and torches/flashlights. Isn't it all based on the the perspective of the viewer? Muliple views are irrelevent. It's just a different perspective. Perhaps I haven't fully understood. I have monocular vision, (I only see out of one eye) therefore I see as a camera sees which is in 2d in constant flux. When looking at any visual analysis it's all based on visual perseption rather than any absolutes. The viewers visual field, acuity, depth perseption, even color perseption is individual. Optical illutions can't be seen by everyone the same way. For instance, I cannot nor have I ever been able to see the "magic-eye" images because I can't see in 3d. So you see I've analyzed the heck out of this and probably don't understand your original observation at all. ;)
Boni
By the way ... love the guitar. Wish I could get my partner to open her christmas present (a guitar she doesn't think we can afford or that she deserves!)
Boni
Boni
"Be Hero to Yourself" -- Peter Tork
SamTherapy posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 10:14 PM
Boni - Nope, no and neyaw. Perspecive is nowt to do wee it if you're counting photons. Kawecki kinda got a grip of it but threw it away by saying photons are waves (they aren't) and the rest of the world threw it away by saying photons are particles (they aren't) so we are left saying what the hell are photons? And why don't I get invited to their parties and why don't all the girls I know want to get naked?
Oh no, that last bit is just me. You can pretend it's photons if you like.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
SamTherapy posted Fri, 01 January 2010 at 10:21 PM
I forgot to mention - pickled onions.
Now go and read Crowley's "The Book of Lies" and tell me I don't know what I'm saying. It's the most honest book you will ever read.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
kawecki posted Sat, 02 January 2010 at 2:07 AM
Much more fun than with mirrors is with a piece of glass.
With glass some light pass trough (is refracted), some light is absorved and some light bounce back (is reflected), the amount of each case depend on the glass material.
The question is:
Much worst, what happens also depend on the incidence angle. For some angle all light is reflected and none pass trough, a window turns into a perfect mirror.
And for other angle none light is reflected. The glass is the same, its material is the same, but how the glass behaves, change.
How a photon knows what to do and how can we calculate what it will do. ????
Stupidity also evolves!
kawecki posted Sat, 02 January 2010 at 2:38 AM
More fun with mirrors.
A photon has a momentum P = m.c. When a photon hit a mirror the photon is reflected, what happens with the momentum?
As the speed of light is always the same the magnitude of the momentum remain the same, but momentum is a vector and the direction was changed when reflected, so the vector momentum has changed.
A Newton's principle tell us that force is the change of momentun per unit time F = dp/dt.
The consequence of all this is when photons hit a mirror it appears a force at the mirror's surface, the mirror is stoned by photons!
Some colateral effects:
We trigger a very powerful Regan's Star War laser to destroy and incoming Persian ICBM or if you prefer a Korean one. The laser beam hit a space satellite reflector to be reflected exactly to where is the missile. You can use several ground lasers for increase the power of the destructive beam.
What happens? The laser beam hit the mirror, the beams are reflected toward the target, photons hit the mirror, a reaction force appears in the satellite mirror and the satellite is put out of orbit, more powerful the laser more the satellite goes to who knows where.
In resume, all these Star War's gizmo works only for one shot, don't miss the only one opportunity you have and of course, against only one missile......
Stupidity also evolves!