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

[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?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Prove they're an idiot.

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.

 

[protonman]

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?

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.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by ahrkron
Am I doing any statement about what the Bible should say?

Not quite sure what this means. Is this English?

 

[Nereid]

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.

Please tell me the name of the physics textbook (or textbooks) that you use to teach physics, especially the part about waves.

 

[Nereid]

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 is your argument?

protonman: Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove you point. *SNIP

What evidence have you requested?

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.[/color]

protonman's reply: I don't accept your methods.

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.

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 your[/color] point. Then I will easily refute your[/color] trite argument and the process will start all over again. This is so predictable. Y[/color]ou follow the exact same pattern. You are so predictable. Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.

 

[protonman]

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.

If you don't like the definition refute it on its own merits. Not on what book it came from.

 

[Deeviant]

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.

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.

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".

If being different and thinking "outside the box" means being disrespectful, brash, and wrong, then I would rather be one of the nameless majority.

 

[protonman]

Taking candy from a baby man...

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.

Most people believed the Earth was flat at one time. Does this mean it was most likely true?

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".

Same one all you people publish in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious"

If being different and thinking "outside the box" means being disrespectful, brash, and wrong, then I would rather be one of the nameless majority.

Again show me where I am wrong. P.S. please provide evidence.

 

[Deeviant]

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.

Unfortunely for you, this is not the old world. Many of the people on this board, and I'm sure all of the mentors have a very solid grip on the Scientific Method. Having agreement between a large and varied body of scientists(doesn't get much more diverse then a internet forum like this) is how science puts forth actual results nowadays. Upon looking at the history of your posts, it is obvious why you referenced old world mentality: You sir, are stil living in the old world, at least when it comes to your science.


I do agree with you about something however:
I would publish the fact that you are full of crap and produce nothing except for meaningless babble in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious."

I would provide evidence of your wrongness, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the hell you are actually trying to say and in fact I would bet you don't even know what the hell you are trying to say. It seems that you never actually say anything, you just provide a never ending stream insulting commentary( A definitive mark of a forum troll).


What exactely makes you think insulting people has anything to do with science? Perhaps, you find a better fit in politics?

 

[Nereid]

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT "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.[/color]

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."