If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?

[protonman]

If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?

 

[David]

Originally posted by protonman
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?

Einstein wrote in one of his 1918 papers:

“There, empty space in the previous sense has physical qualities, mathematically characterized by the components of the potential of gravitation that determine the metrical behavior of that portion of space as well as its gravitational field. This situation can very well be interpreted by speaking of an ether whose state varies from point to point.”

He wrote in one of his 1920 papers:

”Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”

 

[Hurkyl]

Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave?

 

[David]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave?

An “ether” is some kind of physical light-speed regulating mechanism in space. It tends to regulate light speed to “c” near the surfaces of astronomical bodies, or to lower than “c” at the surfaces of massive bodies.

When light leaves a star that is moving away from the earth, the light leaves the star at about “c”, relative to the star, but at c – v relative to the earth, but by the time the light gets to the Earth it is regulated to “c” at the Earth and c + v away from and relative to the star that emitted it. Thus, it’s obvious that the light changes relative speed while in route.

Some of Einstein’s papers expressed his later point of view that the fields of astronomical bodies, specifically the gravity fields, might act as a local ether near the surfaces of the bodies.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by David
Einstein wrote in one of his 1918 papers:

“There, empty space in the previous sense has physical qualities, mathematically characterized by the components of the potential of gravitation that determine the metrical behavior of that portion of space as well as its gravitational field. This situation can very well be interpreted by speaking of an ether whose state varies from point to point.”

He wrote in one of his 1920 papers:

”Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”

Interesting in light of SR.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Why do we need Ether to talk about light being a wave?

Do you know what a wave is?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by protonman
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?

Wow.

Light is not like sound (the typical analogy). It does not require a medium upon which to propagate (as Hurkyl insinuated).

Whether or not you believe that statement to be true, again, its all about the evidence: Hundreds, if not thousands of experiments have hypothesized about the ether and attempted to find it - and all have failed. You cannot assume an ether exists, contrary to such a massive body of evidence.

David, quite simply, Einstein's "ether" from those quotes is not the same as the ether protonman is talking about. That is abundantly clear from the second quote. Einstein's ether is simply space-time and the fact that it has measurable properties. It is not an acutal medium in which light propagates like sound in air.

 

[protonman]

Definition of a wave

It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by protonman
It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.

1. Why?

2. Prove it.

 

[David]

Originally posted by protonman
Interesting in light of SR.

Einstein changed his “constancy” postulate in his 1911 paper. Not very many people realize that because they just don’t understand the GR theory. After 1911, his light speed was regulated locally by the gravity fields through which it moved, at and near the surfaces of astronomical bodies.

Light could actually be “self propagating”. That is, it could be little wiggling electric and magnetic fields that move through space. Not a “wave” action inside pre-existing electric and magnetic fields, but actually a movement through space of tiny little wigging electric and magnetic fields that are emitted from an atom, and the little fields might move through space.

If this happens, then light does not need a medium in which to propagate. However, it has been proven that light speeds up slightly in deep space, away from strong fields, and it slows down slighly near the surfaces of astronomical bodies. So, the gravity fields near bodies and in deep space tend to have light-speed regulating properties. Thus, gravity could act like a kind of “ether”, something like a “medium” like glass, water, and air, something that slows down the little moving wiggling electric and magnetic fields as they travel through space. In strong gravity they slow down, and in weak gravity they speed up.

But the original “constancy” postulate of the 1905 theory was changed with his 1911 theory.

Einstein’s original 1905 postulate was based on the Lorentz 1895 theory that light always moved at “c” in empty space. But Einstein later realized that light speed slows down in a strong gravity field.

Get yourself a copy of the 1895 Lorentz book, and you will see where Einstein’s 1905 SR theory came from. It was not his original idea. It is actually modified version of the 1895 Lorentz book.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by russ_watters
1. Why?

2. Prove it.

If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics.

 

[ahrkron]

Oh boy,

Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.

This is NOT because of any conspiracy, or a desire to "maintain the status quo" (come on! the very idea is laughable), but because it is now firmly established (via experiment) and well understood.

Nowadays, relativistic corrections are used in myriads of experiments, and of course each one of them is first calibrated and tested with known magnitudes, to make sure that the gadget (or the 100 ton detector) measures things correctly. Any discrepancy would have been detected and studied long ago.

Due to the level of precision that current technology allows for experimental measurements, SR effects are extemely well tested. The current frontier of our knowledge is in a very different place.

 

[protonman]

I have read some of the history on SR and had heard the Lorentz was partially responsible from SR. Also, there is some speculation that Poinclare actually came up with a version of relativity using the same postulates as Einstein but before him. Either way, as it is presented it seems that Einstein suddenly came up with this idea all on his own which is unfortunate. Although this is mostly in the popular media and not so much in science texts.

I still think that based on the definition of a wave that you need a media and don't quite understand what you were saying about tiny electric and magnetic fields.

As I see it a wave is not something that exists independent of its medium of propagation. A wave is just a disturbance of that medium where each point moves up and down but there is no transverse displacement of particles.

Funny how no one has come up and tried to refute what you said. I notice that when they can't answer they ignore. When they address and you fight back they attempt to silence.

How about the Schwartz book on GR. Would you recommend it. I am very comfortable with SR although can't seem to find a good presentation of the covariant derivation and formulation of Maxwell's equations.

 

[David]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Oh boy,

Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.

No, Lorentz theory and GR theory are well validated. What you are calling SR theory was invented by Lorentz in 1895. He invented “time dilation”, “length contraction”, mass increase due to motion, accelerative effects on oscillating atoms, a speed limit of “c”, atomic clock slowdowns. Einstein didn’t invent this stuff, he just modified the Lorentz theory in his 1905 paper. Einstein cultists attribute all this stuff to Einstein, but Lorentz actually invented it. I’ve got a copy of his rare 1895 book. Why do you think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equations in his SR paper? The Transformation equations were published in Lorentz’s 1895 book.

 

[GRQC]

Ah, the self-proclaimed genius... Follow these simple steps to be your own self-procliamed genius!

(1) Go on a message board and profess to understand the subject better than the professionals who work in the field, because you aren't brainwashed by the orthodoxy (because academia is a giant corporate conspiracy to quell real knowledge and thinking).

(2) Be sure to only "publish" your revolutionary ideas on the web, because submitting them to journals is out of the question (the orthodoxy will not allow your theories to threaten the establishment).

(3) Always be sure to base your argument on a statement made in a paper which is at least 75 years old, but necessarily written by Einstein (or the father of the field in question). In doing so, you will immediately demonstrate the association of your ideas with those of the the paradigm-shifters.

(4) In light of (3), be careful to ignore any of the contradictory literature which was pubished in the years between then and now. It could serve to undermine your theory. Besides, the published results are clearly wrong.

(5) If you didn't mention it before, be sure to point out that you are a physics teacher, shaping the critical thinkers of tomorrow away from the poison of traditional academics. In the same paragraph in which you tout your pedagogical prowess, be sure to top it off with a grand-slam insult of your audience. Make 'em know who's the genius!

[zz)]

 

[protonman]

Physics is well beyond the stage of validating or even discussing about SR. It is not even a controversial matter any more among professional physicists.

They said the same thing in Newton's time. Then again at the end of the 19th century when they thought they could explain all the forces in terms of gravity and E&M. No one to any reasonable degree has explained why the speed of light is constant to all observers...etc.

 

[ahrkron]

Did I say Einstein? No, I didn't. The point is that SR is extremely well tested.

Regarding authors, you have it wrong. Lorentz did indeed publish the transormation that have his name, but the interpretation he had for them was different from Einstein. That's a different discussion altogether.

The one person that almost got to what we call now SR, but didn't quite get there, was Poincare.

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by David
No, Lorentz theory and GR theory are well validated. What you are calling SR theory was invented by Lorentz in 1895. He invented “time dilation”, “length contraction”, mass increase due to motion, accelerative effects on oscillating atoms, a speed limit of “c”, atomic clock slowdowns. Einstein didn’t invent this stuff, he just modified the Lorentz theory in his 1905 paper. Einstein cultists attribute all this stuff to Einstein, but Lorentz actually invented it. I’ve got a copy of his rare 1895 book. Why do you think Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation equations in his SR paper? The Transformation equations were published in Lorentz’s 1895 book.

Most relativists are well aware of the origins of their field. I agree with you on one point, that Einstein receives too much "popular" credit for work which was not entirely his.

However, being as familiar with relativity as you are, I'm sure you realize the trivial typo you made by noting that mass increases with velocity... right?

 

[David]

Originally posted by protonman
I have read some of the history on SR and had heard the Lorentz was partially responsible from SR.

Here is a copy of a page from the 1895 Lorentz book, showing how he introduced the Lorentz transformation equations. In the old German text p = v and V = c.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4dc32b3127cceb821b68ead3f0000001610

Lorentz introduced time dilation on page 49 of that book.

 

[ahrkron]

protonman,

So you would say that all experimental verifications of SR are just lucky coincidences? what about Quantum Field Theory and QED? (both of which are based on SR) do their fantastic accuracy also comes from sheer luck?

No way.

 

[protonman]

David,

Have you heard of this book "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields". Sounds like a very interesting premise.

It really puzzles me why only objects with no mass can go the speed of light. The equivalence between energy and mass also is interesting. I think with a lot of original thinking and the theory of SR these things can be explained. I actually have a lot of original ideas but this place (it turns out) is not the place to go to share new ideas.

I think that deep down gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing in the same way that the E and B fields are treated as different aspects of the electro-magnetic field tensor.

Assuming that SR is correct, at least under certain conditions, a comprehensive formula can be developed. What would be nice is to develop a formulation of physics without resorting to QM. SR and GR contain less logical inconsistancies than QM.

 

[David]

Originally posted by protonman
Either way, as it is presented it seems that Einstein suddenly came up with this idea all on his own which is unfortunate. Although this is mostly in the popular media and not so much in science texts.

On page 20 of the introduction to Lorentz’s 1920 book, “The Einstein Theory of Relativity”, Brentano’s Publishers, Einstein himself is quoted in a New York Times interview as saying:

“This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the theory of special relativity. Briefly, it discards absolute time and space and makes them in every instance relative to moving systems.”

Einstein was only 16 years old when Lorentz’s relativity theory was published in 1895. Lorentz developed the theory, and Einstein copied it and modified it in his 1905 theory.

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
They said the same thing in Newton's time. Then again at the end of the 19th century when they thought they could explain all the forces in terms of gravity and E&M. No one to any reasonable degree has explained why the speed of light is constant to all observers...etc.

Self-proclaimed genius addendum:

Always point out shortcomings of theories in the past, in order to villify the orthodoxy (which clearly has not learned the subtle lessons from past events the way that you have) and promote your alternate theory/opinion. Good superficial comparisons include: "They thought the sound barrier could not be broken", or "They said a man could never run a mile under 4 minutes".

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
protonman,

So you would say that all experimental verifications of SR are just lucky coincidences? what about Quantum Field Theory and QED? (both of which are based on SR) do their fantastic accuracy also comes from sheer luck?

No way.

Why do you ask me a question and then answer it yourself? You some kind of funny guy?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by GRQC
Self-proclaimed genius addendum:

Always point out shortcomings of theories in the past, in order to villify the orthodoxy (which clearly has not learned the subtle lessons from past events the way that you have) and promote your alternate theory/opinion. Good superficial comparisons include: "They thought the sound barrier could not be broken", or "They said a man could never run a mile under 4 minutes".

What is my theory or opinion? I bet you haven;t even read all my posts. I barely mentioend my stance on this issue. I have just raised questions. I am not pushing my particular interpretation. I wouldn't waste my time with your type since it would obviously be of no benefit. I discuss with intellegent and more importantly critical thinkers.

 

[David]

Originally posted by protonman

It really puzzles me why only objects with no mass can go the speed of light. The equivalence between energy and mass also is interesting. I think with a lot of original thinking and the theory of SR these things can be explained. I actually have a lot of original ideas but this place (it turns out) is not the place to go to share new ideas.

In the Lorentz theory, all fields put up a “resistance” to the motion of atoms through them. It was he who hypothesized that there is a speed limit of “c” for objects moving through strong fields.

Einstein at first thought this was just a “relative motion” effect, but Lorentz said it was an effect of a “resistance” to the motion being put up by the fields through which the motion takes place.

NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.

In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the Earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the Earth and the earth’s local fields.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by David
In the Lorentz theory, all fields put up a “resistance” to the motion of atoms through them. It was he who hypothesized that there is a speed limit of “c” for objects moving through strong fields.

Einstein at first thought this was just a “relative motion” effect, but Lorentz said it was an effect of a “resistance” to the motion being put up by the fields through which the motion takes place.

NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.

In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the Earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the Earth and the earth’s local fields.

What you are saying is very interesting. This information is, to my knowledge, not well know at least in the popular sense. There is a lot wrong with early 20th century phyics. The physicists seem content to move along with their theories which are really just approximations. As long as they match experiment they are good enough. They forget the genious of Newton and Einstein. They people thought of themselves as natural philosophers. Einstein's quote about wanting to know the mind of god and the rest is stamp collecting (this is the basic idea of what he said) is the true spirit of a scientist. As I said before there are no great thinkers anymore.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by protonman
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics.

There is no need for this, protonman. You have admitted gaps in your knowledge in other posts and there is nothing wrong with not knowing everything about everything: I have also admitted where my understanding of SR/GR ends (I haven't delved much into the math). But responding to every probe for and idea like its a personal attack isn't going to help you learn what you are missing. Is that how the kids in your classes respond when you ask them a question? Would you tolerate that?

And maybe more to the point, since when are SR and GR taught in high school physics?

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by David

NASA used this Lorentz theory do generate a current flow in their tether experiment several years go. The long tether cause a “drag” effect while moving through the earth’s gravity field, and when the tether finally snapped, it fell behind the space shuttle, because of that drag effect.

This drag effect is due to electomagnetic interactions, and not gravity. If you move a wire through a magnetic field, it generates current. Moving charges feel magnetic forces, so there will be a drag on the current-carrying tether.

In large-scale universal space, the distant galaxies are not moving through the earth’s gravity fields, and thus their speeds relative to the Earth are not limited to “c”. That’s why they are called “superluminal” galaxies, faster than light-speed galaxies, relative to the Earth and the earth’s local fields. [/B]

There are much stronger gravitational fields in the universe than that of the earth. I'm not sure I see the connection you're drawing with superluminal expansion.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by russ_watters
There is no need for this, protonman. You have admitted gaps in your knowledge in other posts and there is nothing wrong with not knowing everything about everything: I have also admitted where my understanding of SR/GR ends (I haven't delved much into the math). But responding to every probe for and idea like its a personal attack isn't going to help you learn what you are missing. Is that how the kids in your classes respond when you ask them a question? Would you tolerate that?

If I want your opinion I will give it to you.

And maybe more to the point, since when are SR and GR taught in high school physics?

Since I stared teaching.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by protonman
If I want your opinion I will give it to you.

You are aware, I hope, that russ is part of the staff here.

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

protonman, and David,

Are there any experiments or observations that you are aware of which are inconsistent with either SR or GR? Same question, expressed slightly differently: what predictions of SR or GR are you aware of which have been shown to be wrong by experiment or observation?

If you have alternative theories/ideas/hypotheses with a similar or overlapping scope to SR or GR, what concrete predictions can you make from these? Specifically, what do you predict that is different from SR or GR? I'm interested, at this stage, in any differences at all, whether they are measurable by current instruments (or technology) or not.

Nereid

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
protonman, and David,

Are there any experiments or observations that you are aware of which are inconsistent with either SR or GR? Same question, expressed slightly differently: what predictions of SR or GR are you aware of which have been shown to be wrong by experiment or observation?

If you have alternative theories/ideas/hypotheses with a similar or overlapping scope to SR or GR, what concrete predictions can you make from these? Specifically, what do you predict that is different from SR or GR? I'm interested, at this stage, in any differences at all, whether they are measurable by current instruments (or technology) or not.

Nereid

I don't accept your methods.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.

I take that is a "no".

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
I take that is a "no".

Do you have any Biblical quotations supporting your views?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.

Protonman,
you made some interesting points, David too.
Nereid asked some open questions about predictions.
Keep talking/posting. Don't get upset.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.

I wasn't aware that I had proposed any methods

First, I asked a yes/no question as to knowledge you currently possess.

Next was a compound question - do you have alternative theories (etc), a yes/no as to your own ideas. If no, OK; if yes, then how about the predictions?

Since you began this thread with a question about the wave nature of light and "Ether", I am curious as to whether you think GR inadequate in some way, and/or have a good alternative. My two questions are concrete ways of asking.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
I wasn't aware that I had proposed any methods

First, I asked a yes/no question as to knowledge you currently possess.

Next was a compound question - do you have alternative theories (etc), a yes/no as to your own ideas. If no, OK; if yes, then how about the predictions?

Since you began this thread with a question about the wave nature of light and "Ether", I am curious as to whether you think GR inadequate in some way, and/or have a good alternative. My two questions are concrete ways of asking.

I don't have to propose an alternative. Sounds like all you are saying 'well we don't have any better ideas so I guess we'll use this one.' All I am doing is showing the illogical nature of some things physics has proposed. Since you made the statement you need to defend it, not me.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
I don't have to propose an alternative. Sounds like all you are saying 'well we don't have any better ideas so I guess we'll use this one.'

I checked; I didn't make any statements, I asked two questions.

Originally posted by protonman
All I am doing is showing the illogical nature of some things physics has proposed. Since you made the statement you need to defend it, not me.

I checked; I didn't make any statements, I asked two questions.

Originally posted by protonman
It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.

This is a statement; Russ asked you why it is impossible, and also asked you if you could prove it (two questions; not statements)

Originally posted by protonman, in answer to Russ' questions
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics.

Imagine I am a slow pupil in your high school physics class. "Teacher protonman, I really don't understand why it is impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propogation. Could you please explain it to me? I'd really like to know. I know that you're very busy, so if you could just tell me which physics textbook has a good explanation, and I'll go read it up there."

 

[protonman]

First I would tell the student they are an idiot. Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium. The 'wave' itself is nothing more than the motion of the medium. It is not some independent physical entity. Without a medium it is nonsense to talk about a wave. Then I would remind them they were an idiot.

 

[Integral]

To continue the part of the student.

Then I'd have to ask about Maxwell's equations. If a changing Electric field creates a changing Magnetic field where is the medium? What is moving?

Do you have any experimental verification of what is moving?

 

[Hurkyl]

Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium.

You should go make fun of all those people who talk about sound waves then!

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
First I would tell the student they are an idiot.

Whatever, enough of this nonsense already.

If you were really a teacher, I would be offended that you have the audacity to make this claim, based on this statement. But it's too obvious that you are are nothing of the kind, as I have always suspected you to be. You're no doubt having a great laugh at your efforts to troll this message board. But quite frankly, you've solidified the image I've had of you since your first assertion that you are a teacher and care about the critical thinking skills of your students. You never fooled me.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by protonman
First I would tell the student they are an idiot. Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium. The 'wave' itself is nothing more than the motion of the medium. It is not some independent physical entity. Without a medium it is nonsense to talk about a wave. Then I would remind them they were an idiot.

As a student, who knows herself to be a little slow but who is nonetheless tenacious, I was rather hurt by your response. So I went and looked up a couple of physics textbooks for myself. What I found was much more like what Integral and Hurkyl briefly mentioned than your definition.

So I would like, respectfully and humbly, to ask you again - please tell me the name of a physics textbook which provides a definition of a wave like the one you gave, and explains sound and light (or electromagnetic waves in general) in terms of the words in your definition.

Regarding the 'idiot' term: I spoke with my Chemistry teacher about this, and she got quite angry. First, she said that there's no evidence in pedagogical theory (or practice) that gratuitous insults do anything but harm a student's ability to learn. Second, she said that a teacher should *always* encourage her students to ask questions about something they don't understand, work independently, and foster their curiosity. Third, she said that our school has a clear policy about language "Any foul or hostile language used in class will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed.[/color]" She encouraged me to go back to you and ask my questions again, and said that if you continue to break the school's policies, she will report you to the Head Teacher.

 

[pelastration]

Maxwell

Nereid,

have you even seen this quote of Maxwell?

"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

I found that on a website of Joseph Newman, never found other oringinal references. But it fits in my ideas about multi-layered spacetime where membrane friction creates all other interactions.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Integral
To continue the part of the student.

Then I'd have to ask about Maxwell's equations. If a changing Electric field creates a changing Magnetic field where is the medium? What is moving?

Do you have any experimental verification of what is moving?

Prove that a changing E field produces a changing B field.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Nereid
As a student, who knows herself to be a little slow but who is nonetheless tenacious, I was rather hurt by your response. So I went and looked up a couple of physics textbooks for myself. What I found was much more like what Integral and Hurkyl briefly mentioned than your definition.

So I would like, respectfully and humbly, to ask you again - please tell me the name of a physics textbook which provides a definition of a wave like the one you gave, and explains sound and light (or electromagnetic waves in general) in terms of the words in your definition.

Regarding the 'idiot' term: I spoke with my Chemistry teacher about this, and she got quite angry. First, she said that there's no evidence in pedagogical theory (or practice) that gratuitous insults do anything but harm a student's ability to learn. Second, she said that a teacher should *always* encourage her students to ask questions about something they don't understand, work independently, and foster their curiosity. Third, she said that our school has a clear policy about language "Any foul or hostile language used in class will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed.[/color]" She encouraged me to go back to you and ask my questions again, and said that if you continue to break the school's policies, she will report you to the Head Teacher.

If you take what you read on the internet personally that is your problem. I don't see why what I say has any effect on you. My view is just one person and if you don't like it then just ignore it.

P.S. Tell your chem teacher they are an idiot.

 

[Hurkyl]

Tell your chem teacher they are an idiot.

Prove they're an idiot.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by protonman
Do you have any Biblical quotations supporting your views?

Am I doing any statement about what the Bible should say?

 

[Deeviant]

I know were all having fun laughing at protonboys trolling, but could we get to the banning the flaming troll part already?