Explain THIS one!

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain THIS one!

Right. "Encourage experimentation." Why? So you can pop out your nitwit line about needing to test each instance?

No, not each instance and not each color each paper type and each ink, by testing every possible combination that wouldn't test anything at all I'd think. I simply proposed the simple test of measuring the dimensions of an object before and after. I agree, it does sound like refraction here, but I wanted to see if anything was being magnified.

Your other choice is to listen and learn.

I am listening, I am learning as proven by my discussions on the more recent threads. You are the only one protesting me on any thread it seems.

"Peon", "troll", "nitwit", "numbnit", etc., please just put me on ignore if you feel that way. Notice I do not call you any names.

Let's note that you clearly 'started it' on this thread. You can't and won't bait me into another round of silly arguments with you which will take the thread further away from glass, refraction, and investigating a neat effect.

Now, I take you back to the regularly scheduled thread.

Here are some interesting links Iamme:

http://mainland.cctt.org/physicslab/content/Phy1/labs/refraction/indexglass.asp
http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/lab/8/node15.html
http://nebula.physics.uakron.edu/~light/refraction/index_of_refraction/index_of_refraction.html
http://vanadium.rollins.edu/~griffin/phy121/exp6.pdf

 

[Iamme]

Greeting T'ai. I'm glad to see that you are curious enough to want to check it out for yourself.

It is NOT magnifyig the letters though, as stated by others. One would THINK that it is a property of refraction. But IS it? I will explain more in a minute, about this, in great detail, as I spent more time with this this morning. (You see, as I post this, I am on a friends computer 20 miles from home and from the glass. That's why I couldn't offer more yesterday. O.k., here we go. What I found is quite interesting.

You put a pane of double-strength 1/8 inch glass over writing...newsprint..whatever. When you look straight down at the letters, the letters appear raised-up higher than the paper by...oh...1/32 inch (I said 1/16 yesterday).

If you cover one eye, you lose binocular vision, and you no longer see the letters as raised.

Now, to see better what is going on, you cover only 1/2 the row of letters with the glass. You will observe there is no distortion or shift between the letters on the paper and what you percieve as raised -up (by 1/32 inch) loetters through the glass. This ALONE is fascinating to me. One would think you would see an enlargement and/or shift in the letters. There is none.

If you look through the glass at the letters that are not directly below you, but off to the side more, you still see the letters as being raised. I expected THIS!

But...if you once again, go ahead and cover up an eye, and look at the letters through the glass...remember earlier I said that when you look straight down, you no longer see theis 3-d effect? Well, if you look at the letters over to the side, with one eye...they are still raised-up looking.

Then, I decided to see what kind of refractive shift I would get by looking straight down at the letters and covering one eye, then the other. THIS is what is odd to me: Yes, the letters shift. I expected them to. But...they only shift just an eensy-teensy bit.

So, when I noticed THIS, I said to myself that I am just going to cut to the chase...so I doubled up the glass. (I would have done more, but all I have is two. Maybe I will get more.) NOW, I see the letters raised a good 1/16 inch (at least the illusion makes it out that way). So...I doubled the glass...I doubled the raised-up letter height.

But this is what's odd: When I went to cover one eye, and then the other...the shift in the letters was still about the same eensy teensy bit, as it was with ONE pane of glass. Yet, with TWO panes of glass...the illusionary height was double-looking to me.

And, this is what ELSE seems odd. O.K.,....if refraction is the cause, you would know that your left eye would refract it to the right, and your right eye would refract it to the left 9or...whatever. The opposite way) WHYYYYY...don't they just cancel each other out...in your brain?

In closing; I hope you are all reading this, because here is something similar which is quite strange to explain. I noticed several years ago that if I looked at a glossy enamel color ad on something, that if it had red print, or blue...or both?...I can't rememberr anymore...that the colored image or print would look raised off the paper, as if I was reading that colored label or picture in 3-d. I THINK I had to have my nearsighted glasses on for this to happen. If I took them off, the effect would vanish. There would BE no effect.

But, with the window glass experiment, for which I used one pane of glass (1/8 inch thick) and doubled this up to be 1/4 inch when I stacked 2 on top of each other...I had my glasses off. I can focus good without glasses at about 1 foot high.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain THIS one!

"Peon", "troll", "nitwit", "numbnit", etc., please just put me on ignore if you feel that way. Notice I do not call you any names.

Right. Whodini takes the moral high ground. Don't make me sick.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain THIS one!

Right. Whodini takes the moral high ground. Don't make me sick.

I have not been the one using insults. I think I've been pretty kind in fact.

But let's not clutter the thread with the Days of Our Lives. It is obviously off topic, no?

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Iamme
And, this is what ELSE seems odd. O.K.,....if refraction is the cause, you would know that your left eye would refract it to the right, and your right eye would refract it to the left (or...whatever. The opposite way) WHYYYYY...don't they just cancel each other out...in your brain?

The reason the refraction causes the paper to appear raised is this: if there were no glass, but instead the paper actually were raised, you would see exactly the same thing. If you bring an object closer to you, the image of it that your left eye sees gets shifted right, and the image of it that your right eye sees gets shifted left.

 

[BillyJoe]

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE LETTERS ARE RAISED BUT THE PAPER IS NOT?

 

[BillyJoe]

If so could this be an optical illusion?

In the bathroom at work as I stand to do my business, I often look at the pattern on the tiles on the wall. The pattern appears to be in 3D. I think it only works with the side light coming in from the window. The tiles are not completely flat and I have attributed the effect to the different reflection of light off different parts of the surface (if you see what I mean)

Do the letters indent the paper a little?
If so, maybe you are seing a similar optical illusion?

BillyJoe

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain THIS one!

I have not been the one using insults. I think I've been pretty kind in fact.

But let's not clutter the thread with the Days of Our Lives. It is obviously off topic, no?

How about you stop cluttering the whole board with your pretense at knowledge. Your post here was complete pap. You tried to ensnare a young mind with a hokum "experiment". Do you get off on this? Clean up your sticky keyboard and quit interfering with JREF's work, dolt. Go get counseling.

 

[Beausoleil]

Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE LETTERS ARE RAISED BUT THE PAPER IS NOT?

That's the question I was asking. I'm not sure I gathered the answer from lamme's follow up post.

Maybe we could persuade BillHoyt and T'ai Chi to handbag one another somewhere else? I'm still mildly curious about the answer.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

That's the question I was asking. I'm not sure I gathered the answer from lamme's follow up post.

Maybe we could persuade BillHoyt and T'ai Chi to handbag one another somewhere else? I'm still mildly curious about the answer.

Beau,

If the glass is over the paper's edge, it will appear shifted, just as the lettering does. Perhaps you could persuade me there is any merit to Troll Chi's questions. If so, which ones and why? How does color come into it? Ink?

The answer is: nothing. Troll Chi is here to troll. In his new incarnation, he is trying to appear reasonable and scientific. He even claims degrees in mathematics and statistics. I laced into the nitwit here because these questions are preposterous, and demonstrate the kid hasn't even mastered high school physics.

Refraction has nothing to do with the ink. Nothing to do with color. Nothing to do with the paper. It is a function of the interfaces between the paper and glass (on one side) and the glass and the air (on the other). The angles of refraction have to do with the refractive index of the glass.

Cheers,

 

[BillyJoe]

Yes, sorry Beausoleil, I was thinking the same as you after reading Iamme's first post, so when I read your post later on I decided to just repeat your question with emphasis hoping to get a clarification this time.

 

[hal bidlack]

this thread has been reported. The reportee complained that the thread had devolved into little more than two folks taking swings at each other. While that may or may not be true, it is not a violation of the rules. I do urge folks to stay on topic, but should they stray, it's not a violation.

hal

 

[Beausoleil]

Re: Re: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

Beau,

If the glass is over the paper's edge, it will appear shifted, just as the lettering does. Perhaps you could persuade me there is any merit to Troll Chi's questions. If so, which ones and why? How does color come into it? Ink?

If the paper and ink are both viewed through the glass, refraction (at the level it's been explained so far) can't make one appear shifted relative to the other. A coin on the bottom of a swimming pool doesn't appear to be floating in mid-water. That's why I asked my question. The problem as outlined isn't clear to me, and your weighing in strikes me as premature.

Actually refraction does depend on colour, as perhaps you know, since refractive index is wavelength dependent. I'm not suggesting that's a solution, or even that a solution is necessary, since the problem didn't seem clear to me. Just wanted an answer to the question I asked the thread starter.

Billy - I wasn't complaining, just trying to highlight the question against the background noise of swinging handbags.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Explain THIS one!

How about you stop cluttering the whole board with your pretense at knowledge. Your post here was complete pap. You tried to ensnare a young mind with a hokum "experiment". Do you get off on this? Clean up your sticky keyboard and quit interfering with JREF's work, dolt. Go get counseling.

Wow.. ..

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

If the paper and ink are both viewed through the glass, refraction (at the level it's been explained so far) can't make one appear shifted relative to the other. A coin on the bottom of a swimming pool doesn't appear to be floating in mid-water. That's why I asked my question. The problem as outlined isn't clear to me, and your weighing in strikes me as premature.

Actually refraction does depend on colour, as perhaps you know, since refractive index is wavelength dependent. I'm not suggesting that's a solution, or even that a solution is necessary, since the problem didn't seem clear to me. Just wanted an answer to the question I asked the thread starter.

The RI for crystal glass, as an example, decreases from 1.57 @ 40 angstroms to 1.54 @ 80 angstroms. The naked eye isn't going to see much difference between red and blue ink with a simple pane of glass.

Slide a pane of glass over some large print and you will see the effect. No ink color dependency. No paper dependency. If you look at it from different angles you will see what is going on. The photons are refracted. Your brain traces back the photons caught by your eye as if they came at you in a straight line. So the shift, to you, is interpreted as an elevation. (A similar effect is used by programmers to make your windows buttons appear to be three dimensional. In that case, shading miscues you to believe you are looking at a 3-D object.)

Cheers,

 

[Iamme]

BillyJoe and Beausoleil---Yes, the letters 'appear' to be raised up off the paper, within the glass itself.

I am leaning more now towards believing that it is behaving similar to a hologram caused when a focal point becomes in a different location from the object itself. (Ever see one of those simple hologram makers where you have an open round pot with an object in the bottom of it, and the image of the object appears to be above the pot?)

I don't think it is 'angular' refraction. If there is any refracting, per se, I would say it's some phenomenon caused by the speed of light slowing down within the glass and when you are simultaneously focusing on the part of the letter outside of the glass, and the part of the letter under the glass....the image from the exposed letter gets to your eye faster than the image of the letter passing through the glass.

I have also considered the possibility of a tension, similar to water tension. This might cause some of the image to be 'reflected' back down toward the paper, lengthening the travel distance the light takes, to finally make it toward your eye.

As I said in an earlier post. I am going to get even MORE glass and keep stacking them. I think this will tell more what is going on. This will get rid of some of the subtleties.

 

[Iamme]

Remember in an earlier post I had also mentioned that I have witnessed this same effect with two different colors on a food label or that enameled magazine paper? It's coming to me more now. The effect occurs when either a red print is over a blue backround, or vice-versa. The one color will appear raised off the page, as if in 3-d!

I'd imagine that this too is caused by some speed of light differential between the blue light and the red light.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.....

Maybe we could persuade BillHoyt and T'ai Chi to handbag one another somewhere else? I'm still mildly curious about the answer.

Ouch. Point well taken Beau!

 

[BillyJoe]

....when either a red print is over a blue backround, or vice-versa.....one color will appear raised off the page... I'd imagine that this too is caused by some speed of light differential between the blue light and the red light.

Blue and red light travel at the same speed. It's their wavelength that is different.
I would lean more towards an optical illusion to explain this one.

BillyJoe

 

[wayrad]

lamme,

I am able to see the effect you mention using several microscope slides stacked together, but only using fairly smooth paper and at a foot or so distance. If I use paper with an obvious texture, like a paper towel, or if I get extremely close to it so that I can see surface detail, the paper as well as the writing looks raised. Do you notice this also? My guess is that it's hard to see the apparent change in distance (edited to add: this change being produced by refraction and binocular vision) where visual cues are lacking. However, I don't have much depth perception, so my experience may be atypical.