- #36
pelastration
- 165
- 0
Protonman,Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.
you made some interesting points, David too.
Nereid asked some open questions about predictions.
Keep talking/posting. Don't get upset.
Protonman,Originally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.
I wasn't aware that I had proposed any methodsOriginally posted by protonman
I don't accept your methods.
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.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 checked; I didn't make any statements, I asked two questions.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.
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
It is utterly impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propagation.
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."Originally posted by protonman, in answer to Russ' questions
If you don't know then I suggest you study high school physics.
Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium.
Originally posted by protonman
First I would tell the student they are 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.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.
Prove that a changing E field produces a changing B field.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?
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.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." 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.
Tell your chem teacher they are an idiot.
Originally posted by protonman
Do you have any Biblical quotations supporting your views?
Because based on unsubstantiated statements on the internet the teacher suggested that I be reported to the school. This is a person who doesn't think. You call me a bad teacher look at this persons advice.Originally posted by Hurkyl
Prove they're an idiot.
I don't know why everytime I make an agrument that can't be refuted or you just don't understand it is called trolling. If you understood my comments and arguments you would see that it is not trolling. But, because you can't see the logic and connection between what I say and the topic you need to call me a troll.Originally posted by Deeviant
I know were all having fun laughing at protonboys trolling, but could we get to the banning the flaming troll part already?
Not quite sure what this means. Is this English?Originally posted by ahrkron
Am I doing any statement about what the Bible should say?
Please tell me the name of the physics textbook (or textbooks) that you use to teach physics, especially the part about waves.protonman: I have the degrees to back up what I say. I am a physics teacher. Unlike you people, I teach students how to think not what to think.
protonman: By definition it [a wave] 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.
Nereid: 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.
What is your argument?protonman: I don't know why everytime I make an agrument [sic] that can't be refuted or you just don't understand *SNIP
What evidence have you requested?protonman: Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove you point. *SNIP
I don't know why everytime I ask a question about something I don't understand in what you write you ignore me or call me an idiot. If you were a real physics teacher you would see that you are being inconsistent. But, because you can see the logic and connection between what you say and the topic you must be a troll.protonman: Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
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.
protonman's reply: I don't accept your methods.
If you don't like the definition refute it on its own merits. Not on what book it came from.Originally posted by Nereid
Please tell me the name of the physics textbook (or textbooks) that you use to teach physics, especially the part about waves.
Originally posted by protonman
I don't know why everytime I make an agrument that can't be refuted or you just don't understand it is called trolling. If you understood my comments and arguments you would see that it is not trolling. But, because you can't see the logic and connection between what I say and the topic you need to call me a troll.
I know what you are going to say now. How I have shown no logic and there no connection. This, of course, will be merely stated without any actual evidence or a particular case. Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove you point. Then I will easily refute you trite argument and the process will start all over again. This is so predictable. With the exception of David all of you follow the exact same pattern. You are so predictable. Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
Most people believed the Earth was flat at one time. Does this mean it was most likely true?Originally posted by Deeviant
If it was just me saying your a troll, then you might have a case. If two people say your a troll, you'd be losing ground. If nearly everybody on the board agrees your a troll, then it is more than likely true.
Same one all you people publish in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious"And I would really like to know which publication you intend to publish your story on. It would be interesting to measure how quickly they reject your "theory" and cite it as "meaningless babble".
Again show me where I am wrong. P.S. please provide evidence.If being different and thinking "outside the box" means being disrespectful, brash, and wrong, then I would rather be one of the nameless majority.
Originally posted by protonman
Taking candy from a baby man...
Most people believed the Earth was flat at one time. Does this mean it was most likely true?
Same one all you people publish in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious"
Again show me where I am wrong. P.S. please provide evidence.
I agree. Let's ignore the troll. What user is he?Originally posted by Nereid
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT [Broken] "What Can be Done about Trolls?
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored."
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.
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.
Here's a list of experimental tests of SR, and http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ [Broken]. Someone else may have a more comprehensive or up-to-date list.Originally posted by Eyesaw
Please list these experiments. Or just one at a time if you please.
I'd like to hear how SR time dilation has been tested in particular. But really, Einstein himself said that SR was not applicable if spacetime was not flat so if all experiments are done in a gravitational field, how can anyone claim SR has been tested? This seems a bit disingenuous at least.
But really, Einstein himself said that SR was not applicable if spacetime was not flat so if all experiments are done in a gravitational field, how can anyone claim SR has been tested? This seems a bit disingenuous at least.
Since Einstein himself said space-time is a kind of aether, all tests that are claimed to confirm GR then have confirmed the ether.
Originally posted by Nereid
Here's a list of experimental tests of SR, and http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ [Broken]. Someone else may have a more comprehensive or up-to-date list.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The same way one can say classical mechanics has been tested. Experiments have been performed, and they agreed with results of SR.
One of the basic principles of GR is that, to put it loosely, it looks like SR on small scales. (such as a laboratory) So, if GR is an accurate description of reality, then SR should be an accurate description of reality on the small scale.
(Just like classical mechanics is an accurate description of the macroscopic world at low velocities)
I would like to point out that the "aether" of GR is not a "classical" aether. (Just like the particles of QM are not classical particles)
Originally posted by Eyesaw
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable to the real world?
I'm a little confused. Are you asking how any test can be valid if there is more than one effect at work? There are always multiple effects being observed in experiments - the trick is knowing what is doing what.Originally posted by Eyesaw
Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go
over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test
can be claimed to have confirmed SR as I keep hearing,
especially from this fanatic russ_waters guy.
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable
to the real world? This is especially puzzling when space-time
itself in GR is endowed with these gravitational effects so that no travel is possible by any matter through it without being affected in a gravitational manner. Using GR tests to confirm SR is very weak inductive reasoning if not a logical fallacy entirely. How do we know that in the absence of gravity, matter will move at all? How do we know that matter doesn't generate its own gravitational fields so
that one can never have a flat spacetime if matter exists? What evidence do we have that in the absence of space-time, light can move at all or even exist?
Originally posted by Eyesaw
Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go
over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test
can be claimed to have confirmed SR as I keep hearing,
especially from this fanatic russ_waters guy.
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable
to the real world? This is especially puzzling when space-time
itself in GR is endowed with these gravitational effects so that no travel is possible by any matter through it without being affected in a gravitational manner. Using GR tests to confirm SR is very weak inductive reasoning if not a logical fallacy entirely. How do we know that in the absence of gravity, matter will move at all? How do we know that matter doesn't generate its own gravitational fields so
that one can never have a flat spacetime if matter exists? What evidence do we have that in the absence of space-time, light can move at all or even exist?
The concept of Ether was proposed in the 19th century as a medium through which light waves could travel. It was thought to be a substance that filled all of space and allowed for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, including light. However, with the advancements in modern physics, the concept of Ether has been replaced by the theory of relativity.
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity showed that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference, meaning that light does not require a medium to travel through. This contradicted the concept of Ether, which proposed that light waves needed a medium to travel through. As a result, the theory of relativity replaced the concept of Ether in explaining the nature of light.
Light is made up of particles called photons, which have both wave-like and particle-like properties. These particles do not require a medium to travel through and can exist in a vacuum. The behavior of light can be explained by the principles of quantum mechanics, which describe the behavior of particles on a microscopic level.
The wave-particle duality of light refers to the fact that light can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behaviors, depending on the experiment being conducted. This duality supports the idea of light being a wave because it can demonstrate properties of a wave, such as interference and diffraction, while also behaving as a particle with discrete energy levels.
There is a wealth of experimental evidence that supports the wave nature of light. This includes the phenomena of interference, diffraction, and polarization, which can all be explained by the wave-like behavior of light. Additionally, the mathematical equations used to describe the behavior of light, such as Maxwell's equations, are based on the wave model of light and have been extensively tested and validated through experiments.