Re: Episode from the history of physics.

On Apr 10, 5:03 pm, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 9, 5:54 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 9, 3:14 pm, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

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.

Below is your quote from an April 7 post:

"In
the cases where the laws of physics (that give rise to a wave
equation) depend on the properties of the material substrate, then
yes, the medium is definitely involved in wave phenomena."

While your statement is quite ambiguous, you do admit that the medium
is involved in wave phenomena.

Quite so, and exactly that, not to be confused with a cause. As
another poster responded to you, the paper of a book is involved with
the words printed in the book, but are not to be taken as the cause of
the words printed in the book.


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.

You have the obligation to provide a quote from your reference to
contradict the statements on the websites I provided a link to, or
concede the point, either because you are too lazy to provide evidence
or there is no evidence in the book.

That's crap. I have no obligation to sit here and copy pages from a
copyrighted book for your convenience. If you don't want to get up off
your ass and read something unless it is spoonfed to you on a
newsgroup, that's your choice. Your demand, according to "rules of
debate" that you want to invoke at your whim, that people spoonfeed
you, does not constitute an obligation on anyone's part.

If a horse's ass asks for water, then perhaps someone will point the
horse's ass toward the water. Perhaps an even more benevolent soul
will lead the horse's ass to the water. But if the horse's ass says,
"You are obligated to drizzle the water through my waiting lips, or
admit that the water isn't there," well then, that horse's ass is
going to die of thirst, pal.


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.

"Now if two sound waves interfere at a given location in such a way
that the compression of one wave meets up with the rarefaction of a
second wave, destructive interference results. The net effect of a
compression (which pushes particles together) and a rarefaction (which
pulls particles apart) upon the particles in a given region of the
medium is to not even cause a displacement of the particles. The
tendency of the compression to push particles together is cancelled by
the tendency of the rarefactions to pull particles apart; the
particles would remain at their rest position as though there wasn't
even a disturbance passing through them. This is a form of destructive
interference."

While this is a generalization of the motion of the particles in a
medium associated with wave phenomena, it does say that the motion of
the particles causes the wave phenomena.

I think not. There can certainly be particles that do not produce
waves, if the laws of physics governing those particles do not take
the form of a wave equation. There are certainly physical situations
where this is the case. The particles are *involved* in the waves
here, and in particular in the case of sound. This does NOT mean that
where there are waves, there are particles responsible for them.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theory of relativity
    ... as refutation of a Ether-Theory, in which the ether rests and mass is ... Experiment of Michelson & Morley happened in the mantle of medium. ... The medium is composed of elementary particles oscillating around ... the Universe, mutually moving, while the "jump" of wave motion from ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ether havent we evolved beyond 1905??
    ... >> teaching of modern physics? ... > permittivity)...and both the permeability and permittivity will be ... > it will not be slowed down by another EM wave? ... > based on the direction of light in this medium. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins logic
    ... >|>| propagated wave and if it is a wave of some sort then we are in totally ... Nevertheless the energy's velocity is finite and source ... small mass a distance away from a larger mass you can determine the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... > It seems to me that except for people who post around here the aether is ... misinterpretation of what a medium is actually doing. ... >> must be some kind of medium for light to travel in if it is a wave. ... >> it with mass, electromagnetism and gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... > It seems to me that except for people who post around here the aether is ... misinterpretation of what a medium is actually doing. ... >> must be some kind of medium for light to travel in if it is a wave. ... >> it with mass, electromagnetism and gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading