Re: Episode from the history of physics.

On Apr 9, 3:14 pm, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 9, 3:53 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 9, 1:37 pm, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
When evidence is presented to support one's
position and a contestor cannot re*** the evidence with more credible
evidence, then the contestor should have the honor to concede the
point.

I beg your pardon. I had no idea you were here for sport, for
jousting, for wrestling until someone makes you cry "Uncle". If you
want that, might I suggest rec.foolish.ideas.last.one.standing.wins or
alt.talking.for.the.sake.of.talking.

You have as much as admitted in a previous post that when a medium is
involved, waves and their characteristics are caused by the medium.

I recall that I said explicitly that this was NOT the case. Would you
like for me to repeat what I said?

However, when I asked you the question point blank, you changed your
tack, saying that the waves were caused by the medium,

I didn't say that either. I said, if you recall, that the waves are
caused by the *laws of physics* that pertain to that system. In the
case of sound, the laws involve some properties of the medium, but the
medium is not the cause of the waves. Since this is about the fourth
time I've explicitly said this, I'll thank you not to repeat your
mistatement that I said the opposite.

but not the
wave's characteristics. You have only given a broad reference to a
physics book.

Do you have it? Can you find it? You'll note that it is an entire book
devoted to the subject of waves.

I have given you two specific references which evidence
that wave characteristics in a medium are caused by that medium. You
have not refutted that evidence.

And once again, I will thank you not to ignore statements that I make.
I was quite explicit in telling you that there is nothing on the two
*high school physics websites about sound* that say that the wave
characteristics are caused *by* the medium. If you think it does, then
kindly quote the sentences that give you that impression.

Therefore, you should either
conceded the point or provide evidence to the contrary.

And I have. I've given you a rather large and considerably more
comprehensive resource than two web pages about sound. If you find
that reading a book is too onerous and it's unfair to expect you to
read something in detail, and that you need something that you can
digest in 2 minutes -- I'm sorry, I'm under no such obligation. Nor is
it my obligation to convince you of something you don't want to
believe. It is no one's obligation to convince you that 2+3 isn't 7,
either. Either you will be interested in finding the truth, or you
won't. If you're not, then by all means find some pursuit other than
physics. I believe I already made that suggestion to you, as well.

That will be
the basis under with I will have any further discussion with you.

That's certainly your choice. Please close the door when you leave.

PD




.

Loading