| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The race to the South Pole
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The race to the South Pole

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2011 at 14:36
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Eskimo goggles do not polarize light. Voine voine, I suspect pictures such as this has misled you. First of all, the waves that are polarized are not some physical string or physical movement of photons (this is a common misconception I think, to confuse particles with something that has to do with the wave-nature of light) but of direction of the electrical field. Thus a polarizer need to be made of a material that can cancel the electrical field, such as metal, or in some other way influence the optics, like crystal or glass.


In prehistoric and historic time, Inuit peoples wore flattened walrus ivory "glasses," looking through narrow slits to block harmful reflected rays of the sun.[3]


I only meant that the Inuit googles stopped reflected light. The modern polarized glasses stop the harmful rays by the same principles: stopping reflected light. Preventing the rays that bounce on the snow to enter the eye. Think about it. You don't need a Nobel prize to understand it, nor to resort to the particle-wave ambiguity, to the photoelectric effect or to Maxwell's equations. Confused

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


If you want polarization and Arctic exploration you can forget about goggles and google for the sunstone or sky compass.


I guess you are interested in Norse achievements, only.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2011 at 14:46
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


 Amundsen used the best tech and by then the inuits were indeed the best equipped people on earth in terms of dealing with that sort of climate, so many "inuit inventions" were logical solutions.


Are there "ilogical solutions"? Confused

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


But that doesn't mean Scott didn't knew about it. The fact is that he did not made a single mistake, there were a lot of them while Amundsen made a few, if any.


Amundsen and his guys survived.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2011 at 16:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 

In prehistoric and historic time, Inuit peoples wore flattened walrus ivory "glasses," looking through narrow slits to block harmful reflected rays of the sun.[3]


I only meant that the Inuit googles stopped reflected light. The modern polarized glasses stop the harmful rays by the same principles: stopping reflected light. Preventing the rays that bounce on the snow to enter the eye. Think about it. You don't need a Nobel prize to understand it, nor to resort to the particle-wave ambiguity, to the photoelectric effect or to Maxwell's equations. Confused
 Inuit goggles doesn't polarize the light, which you claimed and ridiculed Cezar when he corrected you - by that time you should have known what "you meant". Inuit goggles don't block *only* reflected rays but reduce the amount of *all* incoming light, so your source is wrong or at least very misleading. Modern glasses does block the reflected light while letting through the non-reflected (well, almost all of it at least) - as it has been polarized through the reflection. The method is *quite* different: they are built up of an array of lines of conducting atoms which neutralizes the electrical field in that direction as the energy of the wave is absorbed by moving electrons in the layers. Inuit goggles work just like squinting your eyes, but saves you the muscular effort - it's a brilliant design and it's quite surprising it didn't appear somewhere else as it is so intuitively obvious. 

I really don't know what you want me to think about and why you bring up the PE-effect or Maxwell I have no idea.


Quote

I guess you are interested in Norse achievements, only.
The question was polarization, so I pointed you in that direction. The Sky Compass isn't Norse, by the way, and the sunstone probably a myth (and not an invention either).


Edited by Styrbiorn - 01 Jul 2011 at 16:59
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2011 at 19:03
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Keep off the offensively personal stuff. You've been warned often enough. You can't get away with it for ever.


Achtung! Double standards detected again ;)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2011 at 20:30
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Keep off the offensively personal stuff. You've been warned often enough. You can't get away with it for ever.


Achtung! Double standards detected again ;)
If you have a quarrel with a post you think in some way requires action (or an action you feel unjustified), then PM any moderator.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2011 at 21:01
Nah, not gonna work. Manus manum lavat. ;)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 01:33
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


In prehistoric and historic time, Inuit peoples wore flattened walrus ivory "glasses," looking through narrow slits to block harmful reflected rays of the sun.[3]


 Inuit goggles doesn't polarize the light, which you claimed and ridiculed Cezar when he corrected you - by that time you should have known what "you meant".


OK. I accept I wasn't precise. It is true Inuit googles don't polarize light, but they diminish the amount of light that falls into the eye indirectly from the ground, which is the same purpose of a polarized glass.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Inuit goggles don't block *only* reflected rays but reduce the amount of *all* incoming light, so your source is wrong or at least very misleading.


I don't agree with that at all. Inuit googles indeed diminish the global amount of light falling in the eye, but if we work out the geometry it should be easy to see that light from the objects at the front of the observer reach the eye easier than light that follows indirect paths.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Modern glasses does block the reflected light while letting through the non-reflected (well, almost all of it at least) - as it has been polarized through the reflection. The method is *quite* different: they are built up of an array of lines of conducting atoms which neutralizes the electrical field in that direction as the energy of the wave is absorbed by moving electrons in the layers.


True.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Inuit goggles work just like squinting your eyes, but saves you the muscular effort - it's a brilliant design and it's quite surprising it didn't appear somewhere else as it is so intuitively obvious.


You don't invent umbrellas in the desert.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

I really don't know what you want me to think about and why you bring up the PE-effect or Maxwell I have no idea.


Forget it. It was just to show I know the physics of light, no matter -obviously- you know it deeper than myself. We should better discuss the optics of pinholes or narrow slits, I guess. Perhaps you know more on the topic than myself, and your oppinions are welcome.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


The question was polarization, so I pointed you in that direction. The Sky Compass isn't Norse, by the way, and the sunstone probably a myth (and not an invention either).


Norses had two instruments to help them oriented at the sea. One was the sun compass, which obviously could be used only at sunny days. The second was probably the sunstone. I don't think it is a myth at all; I think it is real. I believe the modern man tends to diminish and downplay the achievements of its simpler ancestors, so many "experts" just don't believe the ancients where smart.






Edited by pinguin - 02 Jul 2011 at 01:35
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 08:26
I think that race for the Southpoles - or realy for both of them, could be seen as very fit marks for the end of an epoch in history, though from another point of view it perhaps already had ended. After it is hard to see there was any major goals for "exploration" on earths surface. Any part has for the last huindred years either been visited by humans - and explorers, scietists, "modern" (perhaps there may stioll been some larger areas were no humans has set their feet/boots, but the point is they could so at any time and these areas are hardly "white spots").
People were from that time practically "everywhere" and in some way "connected" -  so the next big thing where to start fighting each other all over the planet a few years later. The preceding "centuries of exploration" - or from another point of view european expansion - were a small part of human history, about 4 centuries. We could also notice that the man representing the "Old Empire" at that time, Britain, came second, and ended in disaster, contrasting  the man from a newly independent country (6 years from the union with Sweden). Since then the numbers of newly independent nation states has grown dramatically in Europe alone.
And though Amundsen of course is one of Norways national heroes he was one out of a number of norwegian - and scandinavian - "explorers".
Last: While the year of 1911 can be seen as part of the last chapter in the "conquest of earth" i see it more like a part of a "golden age" of science, especially physics and some other.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 13:35
With respect to Inuit googles and narrow slits, it seems I wasn't wrong after all.

http://www.physicssource.ca/docs/ebook/13_PearsonPhysics_ch13.pdf

There you can find an explanation about Young's two slits experiment on polarizing, which, curiously, was made by two narrows slits... and as a curiousity they mention the Inuit device... Wink

Yes, sure, I said "polarizing".... Instead I should have said that narrow slit physics is the basis of both "inuit goggles" and modern polarizing glasses.





Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 13:55
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

With respect to Inuit googles and narrow slits, it seems I wasn't wrong after all.
You are still just as wrong:

Quote
http://www.physicssource.ca/docs/ebook/13_PearsonPhysics_ch13.pdf
There you can find an explanation about Young's two slits experiment on polarizing, which, curiously, was made by two narrows slits... and as a curiousity they mention the Inuit device... Wink

 Young's experiment did not polarize the light; the slits diffract the light, creating interference which is a proof of the wave-nature of light. Read the paragraph again. They did mention the Inuit goggles - as a tidbit, they did not say they were polarizing. 

Quote
Yes, sure, I said "polarizing".... Instead I should have said that narrow slit physics is the basis of both "inuit goggles" and modern polarizing glasses.
No it isn't and you would still be wrong. The slit is a mechanical analogy: the modern polarizing glasses have lines of conducting material which cancel the passing electrical field in the direction of the lines. Your pdf don't explain how a polarizing filter works (probably because its complicated and they don't want to confuse and distract the reader from what seems to be the essential discussion: the wave-particle duality). 




Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 14:20
I got a bit distracted from the actual topic. Le

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


But, et tu Hugo? I suppose no Scandanavian had learned to live in extremely cold conditions for hundreds of years! And as I referenced earlier with respect to Burberry, the Inuit technology argument is specious.
 

To be fair, most Scandinavian Arctic explorers lived in much more temperate conditions. It seems like the fellows who lived in the coldest parts were quite satisfied with the local low temperatures and stayed where they were. Amundsen, Nansen, the Nordenskiölds, Andrée, Sverdrup, etc, were all from the warmest parts of respective country. They did employ knowledge learned by Inuits or dwellers on the North Cap: e.g. on Nordenskiölds Greenland expedition of 1883 were two Sami who were expert skiers. They functioned as scouts on the icecap when the ship got stuck. Likewise, Amundsen did learn from the Inuits, but it would indeed be a ridiculous exaggeration to say something like "he got there with Inuit technology".

Quote  We could also notice that the man representing the "Old Empire" at that time, Britain, came second, and ended in disaster, contrasting  the man from a newly independent country (6 years from the union with Sweden). Since then the numbers of newly independent nation states has grown dramatically in Europe alone.

I wouldn't put any thought to that. Norwegian and Swedish explorers had been making repeated expeditions  to the Arctic and Antarctic for many decades. It's not like Norway appeared out of nowhere in 1905. 
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 15:13
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 
Quote  We could also notice that the man representing the "Old Empire" at that time, Britain, came second, and ended in disaster, contrasting  the man from a newly independent country (6 years from the union with Sweden). Since then the numbers of newly independent nation states has grown dramatically in Europe alone.

I wouldn't put any thought to that. Norwegian and Swedish explorers had been making repeated expeditions  to the Arctic and Antarctic for many decades. It's not like Norway appeared out of nowhere in 1905. 
Since I have close relations with Norway I am very much aware of what we may label Scandinavian tradition arctic exploration. We could mention more examples. Still I think there must have been very much prestige at stake, also at the national level. The museums for those explorers in Oslo are some of the attractions, beside the museum for Heyerdahls voyages.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 15:34
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 
Quote  We could also notice that the man representing the "Old Empire" at that time, Britain, came second, and ended in disaster, contrasting  the man from a newly independent country (6 years from the union with Sweden). Since then the numbers of newly independent nation states has grown dramatically in Europe alone.

I wouldn't put any thought to that. Norwegian and Swedish explorers had been making repeated expeditions  to the Arctic and Antarctic for many decades. It's not like Norway appeared out of nowhere in 1905. 
Since I have close relations with Norway I am very much aware of what we may label Scandinavian tradition arctic exploration. We could mention more examples. Still I think there must have been very much prestige at stake, also at the national level. The museums for those explorers in Oslo are some of the attractions, beside the museum for Heyerdahls voyages.

From that perspective I certainly agree. The Arctic exploration was a source of national self-esteem and prestige for the young state and has stayed so. In contrast, the Arctic exploration is virtually forgotten in Sweden even though it attracted as much national interest as in Norway during it hey-days, when the return of expeditions were met with huge crowds and festivities, and the explorers who perished got large state burials. 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 16:02
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 Young's experiment did not polarize the light; the slits diffract the light, creating interference which is a proof of the wave-nature of light. Read the paragraph again. They did mention the Inuit goggles - as a tidbit, they did not say they were polarizing. 


Here we go again.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


No it isn't and you would still be wrong. The slit is a mechanical analogy: the modern polarizing glasses have lines of conducting material which cancel the passing electrical field in the direction of the lines. Your pdf don't explain how a polarizing filter works (probably because its complicated and they don't want to confuse and distract the reader from what seems to be the essential discussion: the wave-particle duality).


How long it will continue? Yes, the Inuits didn't have polirizing glasses... and they didn't developed polarizing filters that cancel the electric field in a given directing. Hey ¡they didn't even know glasses! Let me try to explain it in basic terms, so -hopefully- I explain myself, instead of going into the two slits experiments, the duality of the light particles, uncertainly, Schrodinger and quantum mechanics.

All I said was:

(1) Inuits had goggles that prevented snow blindness.

(2) Let us ask ourselves what causes snow blindness in the first place? Obvious answer: the excess of light in the artic.

(3) What causes the excess of light on the artic? Obvious answer: the reflection of sun light on snow and ice.

(4) How to prevent snow blindness: Obvious answer: diminishing the amount of light falling to the eyes.

(5) What light would be better to blind in the artic: Again: obviously, stopping the light that comes from the reflection from the snowy or icy ground. If you diminish THAT light, then you reduce chances of snow blindess.

Here it is the catch. Inuit snow goggles don't stop all the light comming to the eyes at the same rate. They focus the vision in a vision field that has less light comming from the ground. Come on, that's the same reason why orientals had slant eyes Confused. And that's the way Inuit google works.

Of course, polarizing glasses made the same thing (stopping the light reflecting from the ground) in a more sophisticated manner. Optics know that light bouncing from the ground is oriented at random but light from the rest of the environment is not random. Therefore, they let pass the oriented waves and stop the random ones that comes from the ground.

So, the principle is the same (no matter physics is different) because in both cases there is a way to stop the waves that come from the ground. In both case, the eyes receive more light from the environment than from the ground. So, I believe is work to say Inuit goggles work by diminishing light falling to the eye, without saying they diminish mainly light comming from the ground into the eye.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 16:09
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

...They functioned as scouts on the icecap when the ship got stuck. Likewise, Amundsen did learn from the Inuits, but it would indeed be a ridiculous exaggeration to say something like "he got there with Inuit technology".


Why so ridiculous? Remember that Scott tried to reach the pole with horses and died: wrong technology.

Amundsen had husky dogs and Inuit slides, and he knew how to use them.
Amundsen weared furs and knew all the secrets on them, thanks to Inuits as well.
Amundsen was an expert igloo builder as well.
Amundsen people had snow goggles Wink while Scott's men suffered continuosly from snow blindness.

Even more, unlike Scott, Amundsen had lived among the Inuits.

And yes, Amundsen had other technologies as well, among them the skis, that are of nordic origin, and that, of course, he knew how to use them. He also had ships and modern tech. Nobody denies that.

But trying to downplay the role of Inuit techniques in Amundsen expedition is just a discriminatory attitude that doesn't have any justification. Particularly when Amundsen himself, and all his biographers, recognize the role of those techniques in his expedition.


Edited by pinguin - 02 Jul 2011 at 16:13
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 16:59
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

How long it will continue? Yes, the Inuits didn't have polirizing glasses... and they didn't developed.
 
All I said was:

(1) Inuits had goggles that prevented snow blindness.

(2) Let us ask ourselves what causes snow blindness in the first place? Obvious answer: the excess of light in the artic.

(3) What causes the excess of light on the artic? Obvious answer: the reflection of sun light on snow and ice.
 
Actually no. Snow blindness is caused by excessive UV radiation. You get it from snow because snow/ice only absorbs about 20% of the UV falling on it, whereas for instance white sand absorbs over 80% . Slit goggles help prevent snow blindness because the total amount of light is reduced, and the UV is also therefore reduced.
 
I am somewhat sensitive naturally to UV radiation, and since teenage have had my ordinary glasses, not sunglasses, made out of UV-filtered glass or plastic. Polarising sunglasses are no use to me at all (no more than ordinary subglasses, because it doesn't matter if the light is polarised or not, it's the UV content that causes the keratitis (sunburn) . 
Quote
(4) How to prevent snow blindness: Obvious answer: diminishing the amount of light falling to the eyes.
See above.
UV filters are a better answer, because they don't make things darker. Using slit glasses is akin to stopping sunburn by wearing a burqah: you dont  get sunburnt but you'd better take vitamin D.

 


Edited by gcle2003 - 02 Jul 2011 at 17:02
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 17:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Actually no. Snow blindness is caused by excessive UV radiation. You get it from snow because snow/ice only absorbs about 20% of the UV falling on it, whereas for instance white sand absorbs over 80% .


Agreed.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


Slit goggles help prevent snow blindness because the total amount of light is reduced, and the UV is also therefore reduced.


That's true, and that's the obvious part. The point I am deffending is that the Inuit's narrow slit goggles allows the entrance of light MAINLY from the environment, not on the ground. It works like the blinders on cars, that stop physically the direct sun radiation to fall into the drivers cars.
As any driver, when you had to drive against the sun at a sunset, would have find out that the "mecanical" blinders of the car help quite a bit to stop light exposure; even without wearing UV glasses.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I am somewhat sensitive naturally to UV radiation, and since teenage have had my ordinary glasses, not sunglasses, made out of UV-filtered glass or plastic. Polarising sunglasses are no use to me at all (no more than ordinary subglasses, because it doesn't matter if the light is polarised or not, it's the UV content that causes the keratitis (sunburn) . 


Indeed. That's a good point. What a polarizing glass do is to stop bouncing sun rays, only, making the image clearer. It doesn't filter a given frequency, like UV. So, I bet the best glasses would be a combination of both.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


See above.
UV filters are a better answer, because they don't make things darker. Using slit glasses is akin to stopping sunburn by wearing a burqah: you dont  get sunburnt but you'd better take vitamin D.


Indeed. Inuit goggles work like ours cars' blinders.

Interesting. Thanks.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 20:29
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:



How long it will continue? Yes, the Inuits didn't have polirizing glasses... and they didn't developed polarizing filters that cancel the electric field in a given directing. Hey ¡they didn't even know glasses! Let me try to explain it in basic terms, so -hopefully- I explain myself, instead of going into the two slits experiments, the duality of the light particles, uncertainly, Schrodinger and quantum mechanics.
It will continue as long as you continue to post misunderstandings and errors and as long as the others doesn't get tired of it.  WinkYou again claimed slits polarize light, using Young's experiment as an example - which was wrong. You misunderstood the experiment and used it to prove your point - of course I will have to respond. 

Then you claimed  "narrow slit physics is the basis of both 'inuit goggles' and modern polarizing glasses" which was still wrong. Yes, the Inuit goggles are narrow slits - however the physics you cited was about interference and the polarizing filters is not related. 

Quote
All I said was:

(1) Inuits had goggles that prevented snow blindness.

(2) Let us ask ourselves what causes snow blindness in the first place? Obvious answer: the excess of light in the artic.

(3) What causes the excess of light on the artic? Obvious answer: the reflection of sun light on snow and ice.

(4) How to prevent snow blindness: Obvious answer: diminishing the amount of light falling to the eyes.

(5) What light would be better to blind in the artic: Again: obviously, stopping the light that comes from the reflection from the snowy or icy ground. If you diminish THAT light, then you reduce chances of snow blindess.

It certainly wasn't "all you said" - see above.

As for your points, 1-4 is exactly what I and others said. 

Quote
Here it is the catch. Inuit snow goggles don't stop all the light comming to the eyes at the same rate. They focus the vision in a vision field that has less light comming from the ground. Come on, that's the same reason why orientals had slant eyes Confused. And that's the way Inuit google works.

Here's the *real* catch: the slits reduces the total amount of light in the same fashion, whether it is coming from the ground or sky. In fact it reduces the light coming from the sky more, being incident at an angle (assuming you're looking horizontally) combined with the inside of the slits covered with absorbing sooth.

Quote
So, the principle is the same (no matter physics is different) because in both cases there is a way to stop the waves that come from the ground. In both case, the eyes receive more light from the environment than from the ground. So, I believe is work to say Inuit goggles work by diminishing light falling to the eye, without saying they diminish mainly light comming from the ground into the eye.
You keep changing your claims but it doesn't really help. First the goggles were polarizing, Cezar says no, you say yes, I say no. You say no but add you really meant reflection in the first place. Then you find an introductionary optics file and change your mind: now they are polarizing again. I say no, you again say it's the same as polarizing filters as they stop reflected light. I now have to say: No. In the case of the goggles, it depends on the direction you look: if you look on the ground most light comes in from reflections on the ground, if you look on the sun most light is from the sun. They work exactly like squinting your eyes: they reduce the number of photons reaching your eye. In the case of a polarizing filter, most passing light is direct light. If anything they work on totally different levels: one stops the particles, the other the waves Tongue

One thing you've succeded with: making me write much more than I've bothered to in a long while.  LOL

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 20:47
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

It will continue as long as you continue to post misunderstandings and errors and as long as the others doesn't get tired of it.  WinkYou again claimed slits polarize light, using Young's experiment as an example - which was wrong. You misunderstood the experiment and used it to prove your point - of course I will have to respond.


First, you have to understand what I said, and not putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Here's the *real* catch: the slits reduces the total amount of light in the same fashion, whether it is coming from the ground or sky. In fact it reduces the light coming from the sky more, being incident at an angle (assuming you're looking horizontally) combined with the inside of the slits covered with absorbing sooth.


Listen, what matters is the amount of light comming from the ground, OK? And if the observer is not crazy enough to keep looking at his feet he will be ok wearing those Inuit goggles.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

You keep changing your claims but it doesn't really help. First the goggles were polarizing, Cezar says no, you say yes, I say no. You say no but add you really meant reflection in the first place.


Whatever. It is clear by now that Inuit goggles don't polarize light. So what? The point is they are useful for theirs purpose.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


...In the case of the goggles, it depends on the direction you look: if you look on the ground most light comes in from reflections on the ground, if you look on the sun most light is from the sun.


I see. You started to get it now. The Inuit goggles work like blinders, not much different than car's blinders or these shutter shades. Confused



Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


They work exactly like squinting your eyes: they reduce the number of photons reaching your eye. In the case of a polarizing filter, most passing light is direct light. If anything they work on totally different levels: one stops the particles, the other the waves Tongue


Certainly that's the idea. They reduce the global amount of light BUT also prevent the observer focus on the ground. Therefore they also work like horse blinders Confused



That's all my argument: to prevent the reception of photons (or lightwaves if you whish) bouncing back from the ground.


Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

One thing you've succeded with: making me write much more than I've bothered to in a long while.  LOL



Good for you.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 21:20

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 

I see. You started to get it now. The Inuit goggles work like blinders, not much different than car's blinders or these shutter shades. Confused

I got it from the very beginning (as I clearly stated in my very first post on the topic - the goggles reduce the amount of light); the rest is just me responding to your errors about the physics. 


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 03:17
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


I got it from the very beginning (as I clearly stated in my very first post on the topic - the goggles reduce the amount of light); the rest is just me responding to your errors about the physics. 


Congrats that you got from the beginning. But you insisted in the idea that the blinders diminished all the light comming to the eyes, when the answer was simpler: it blocked most of the light comming from the ground.


Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 11:46
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


I got it from the very beginning (as I clearly stated in my very first post on the topic - the goggles reduce the amount of light); the rest is just me responding to your errors about the physics. 


Congrats that you got from the beginning. But you insisted in the idea that the blinders diminished all the light comming to the eyes, when the answer was simpler: it blocked most of the light comming from the ground.

Yes of course; it blocks polarized and non-polarized light to the same degree (ie to the same percentage).

I don't understand the bolded sub-sentence. First of all it doesn't even contradict the first part of sentence. Do you mean the goggles block light coming from the ground at a higher rate (ie the transmission is lower)  than from the sky? In that case you are still wrong. If you mean that the largest part of the light that is blocked, the majority comes from reflections on the ground: then you are probably correct provided the sun isn't in your field of view. In this case it doesn't contradict what I "insisted" though...

Maybe it's time to separate this discussion from the topic?


Edited by Styrbiorn - 03 Jul 2011 at 11:47
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 15:44
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

I don't understand the bolded sub-sentence. First of all it doesn't even contradict the first part of sentence. Do you mean the goggles block light coming from the ground at a higher rate (ie the transmission is lower)  than from the sky? In that case you are still wrong.


No. It isn't what I meant! I mean it select the light from the front, which is the sector that has really information, and prevent the glare from the ground, and the sky as well. (The light comming from the sky comes from a single source as you know, so that's why cars have blinders in the first place. If you block the sun most of the excess of light goes, as you see when you drive against the sun at a sunset)

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


If you mean that the largest part of the light that is blocked, the majority comes from reflections on the ground: then you are probably correct provided the sun isn't in your field of view. In this case it doesn't contradict what I "insisted" though...


Yes, that's what I mean.
And at the beginning I said polarized lens did the same... by other means. Polarized lens stop the reflections on the ground based in the principle that bouncing light has random polarization. (In other words, either with a blinder or with a polarized glass, both stop the excess of light comming from the ground which is the cause of snow blindness; no matter they do by other means, and using different physics). But Gcle2003 said something smarter: polarizing glasses don't stop UV, and he is right on it. To stop UV you need to filter frequencies rater than filtering by polar angle). So, to the pole this time go with a polarize glass with UV filter.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Maybe it's time to separate this discussion from the topic?


What about openning a thread on physics?


Edited by pinguin - 03 Jul 2011 at 15:47
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 08:13
Oh, boy, I think I managed to mess things up. Here is the post that "inspired" my first reply:
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What is interesting, hugoestr, is that Inuits invented snow blindness googles. I don't know how they figured out that theirs design polarized light, but they did.
Again, I can't help to highlight what I find wrong. Pinguin, you might have meant a quite different thing but what you wrote ist not only that the inuit snow goggles polarized light, you wrote that the inuits figured out that their design polarized light. This, my friend, is what I've found to be preposterous. It's like saying the aborigenes from Australia built boomerangs and figured out the complex aerodynamics of that tool.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 15:28
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Again, I can't help to highlight what I find wrong. Pinguin, you might have meant a quite different thing but what you wrote ist not only that the inuit snow goggles polarized light, you wrote that the inuits figured out that their design polarized light.


Oh boy. It was the wrong way to say it. I have repeated it several times already. Are you keep going?

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:


This, my friend, is what I've found to be preposterous. It's like saying the aborigenes from Australia built boomerangs and figured out the complex aerodynamics of that tool.


Nobody is going to take the title from the Australian aborigin to build the first real aerodynamic surfaces of the kind that make modern planes to flight. Of course, fooling around with formulae is an achievement of modern man.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.