Please help me out with this

marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Please help me out with this

 Some guy I was discussing different topics with showed this to me. I really don't fully understand what the point is the old man is trying to get across. I am not that knowledgeable on the subject either, so any help would be appreciated. I need to know

1. What the old man's point is about the different stones.

2. How accurate are his claims. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb-W46RfLEY

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Marshall

 

The claim here is that these stones when sliced across into thin films and strapped across a lamp offer a beautiful projection onto a white surface but what the fuck? You can't build using films of precious stones and nor can these patterns be seen unless they are lit from behind - all of them, all of the time. Even if true, it's a crock of complete shit and proves nothing at all beyond the fact christians will clutch at any straw.

We're expected to believe this is the one thing that at last proves beyond a doubt that the bible is the word of god, dictated to the mushroom munching John in his garret in alexandria. On the strength of this one obscure proof, Noah's ark, the talking anaconda and all the rest of the total shit that's in the bible can now be discounted.

That old bloke in the video should go back to making crispy skinned chicken.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears

marshalltenbears wrote:

 Some guy I was discussing different topics with showed this to me. I really don't fully understand what the point is the old man is trying to get across. I am not that knowledgeable on the subject either, so any help would be appreciated. I need to know

1. What the old man's point is about the different stones.

He's talking about the refractive indexes. Most stones have more than one refractive index (different values of n for different directions through the material), and hence are dichromic (two-coloured) or pleochromic (many-coloured).

Isotropic pretty much literally means singularly hot, so an isotropic material allows only one wavelength of light through it. Anisotropic means the opposite so anisotropic material lets lots of wavelengths through.

Quote:

2. How accurate are his claims. 

His claims are accurate enough, but he is being deceptive by omission and misdirection.

In truth virtually all gemstones are anisotropic and there is nothing inherently special about the twelve named in revelation. Notice keeps mentioning Diamonds and Garnets as "examples" of isotropic stones, but this is misleading, the truth is that's basically the entire list of known singularly refractive stones. I think there are three in total, diamond and garnet are the best known.

Also his talk about "purity" of light is very strange. Lasers and polarisers enhance/isolate certain properties of light which are useful, however, its a mistake to consider this as making the light more pure, that is just a weird claim. Light has many characteristics but none of them could be said to be more pure than others.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise whats your avatar

Eloise whats your avatar of?

 

 

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Erich von Daniken would have

Erich von Daniken would have made a much more fun point out of that.

Dismissing what the old geezer was saying, we might turn to the text itself and ask WTF John was on about. My personal guess is that he is referring to something he has seen, or heard about, that actually existed. People were not stupid in ancient times, even though they lacked the cohesive scientific framework we have today, so they would probably explain technological phenomenons very differently. There are many examples of bizarre objects of a respectable age, such as the Baghdad battery and the Antikythera mechanism. Archimedes of Syracuse was said to have made some sort of "death ray" that he used to set ships in a hostile fleet on fire from afar, but we don't know any technical details. However, we can visualise a concave bronze reflector with some sort of crystal "solenoid" for the makings of a primitive laser. In all likelihood, there's been a bunch of extraordinary talented individuals of the "inventor" persuation all throughout history. They have probably made lots of things that would make even modern people gawk in awe. (And why not? Ignorant people today are ignorant the same way ignorant people have always been - i.e. ready to believe in fairy tales instead of thinking critically about things.) But all such artifacts were unique. There were never any mass production. So we aren't likely to find a lot of them.

If anything, the existence of ancient technological artifacts and "proto-sceintific data indicators" (information that seems to suggest advanced knowledge) should be chalked up to the ingeniousness of the human being - or, at least, those who don't just believe any cock-and-bull story but set out to investigate for themselves instead.

URL to a good resource webpage for dealing with pseudo-science:

www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Badanal.htm

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Eloise

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Eloise whats your avatar of?

 

 

 

 

A pic of me, photoshopped to give it more of an impressionist painting sort of feel.

 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
From my textbook. Physics

From my textbook. Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Tipler and Mosca. 6th edition, Volumes 2&3. Ch. 31. Section 3 and 4. 

"A transparent medium is characterized by an index of refraction, n, which is defined as the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, to the speed in the medium, v [....]"

"The index of refraction of a material has a slight dependence on wavelength. For many materials, n decreases slightly as the wavelength increases [....] The dependence of the index of refraction on wavelength (and therefore on frequency) is called dispersion. When a beam of white light is incident at some angle on the surface of a glass prism, the angle of refraction (which is measured relative to the normal [perpendicular to surface]) for the shorter wavelengths is slightly smaller than the angle of refraction for the longer wavelengths) is therefore bent more toward the normal than that of longer wavelength. The beam of white light is thus spread out or dispersed into its component colors or wavelengths [....]" 

"In an electromagnetic wave, the direction of the electric field is perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. If the electric field remains parallel to a line perpendicular to the direction of propagation, the wave is said to be linearly polarized."

Gee, his arguments are partly based on the premise that these traits are aesthetically appealing. But, clearly, there's nothing intrinsically valuable about polarized light (omg, it's pure!), or different wavelengths (omg, pretty colors!). 

Also, anisotropic means that the material's physical properties are influenced by the direction in which you measure them while isotropic materials are not. Lol, that doesn't sound very pure, does it? God wouldn't have picked impure materials, right?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Isotropic

Eloise wrote:

Isotropic pretty much literally means singularly hot,

Oops, my bad I was thinking of "thermic" and talking about tropic, isotropic, rather, means singularly turned because a trope is generally a point of transition in something.  Sorry.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:[Sorry.  I

Eloise wrote:

[Sorry.

 

I sincerely hope you understand that with tits like that, if you play your cards right, you will never have to excuse yourself for anything, ever.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com