Re: Episode from the history of physics.

On Apr 13, 11:32 am, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 10, 6:24 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 10, 5:03 pm, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

"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.

Hardly a valid comparison. Let's drop back a notch. Do you or do you
not agree that a sound wave is caused by the variation in the motion
of the molecules in the air?

And what causes the motion of the molecules in the air?


Here's a website stating that is in fact the cause of a sound wave.

Lovely. Now you're reading about physics on websites written by
musicians. Tell me when you have a website about waves written by a
poet.


http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/musicand.htm

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 you want to prove me wrong and you right, then you do have the
obligation to provide a quote, not just a reference to a book. Just
saying that something is in a book is known as an appeal to a higher
authority. It doesn't prove anything.

You're missing something here. I don't have to prove *anything* to
you. This isn't a wrestling match. If you state something that is
wrong, then I will tell you it's wrong, and point you to a place where
you can correct your error. If you want to stay wrong, that's just
fine with me. I'm not about to attempt to ramrod anything into you
until you cry "Uncle! Uncle! I admit you're right!" That is a
pointless exercise with some people, and I'm pretty sure I'm talking
with one of those people. The world is full of cranks who say
something stupid followed by "Prove me wrong!" There is no such
obligation, and failure to engage with that challenge does not
indicate that you are right. It indicates that you are a waste of
time.



"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.

What you think is of no matter unless you can provide the proof to
back it up. The discussion now is whether sound waves are CAUSED by
the motion of the particles in a medium. I have provided evidence
that sound waves are caused by the motion of the particles in a
medium. It's your turn to provide evidence that they are not.

Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • light
    ... Quote: ... particles form the wave effects of light. ... you only make handwaving assertions about an "aperture effect" ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles
    ... The star is seen behind where it actually is. ... But the wave front is coming from a different direction, ... particles that travel at other speeds nearby. ... With the source traveling at 0.5c, in the one case you get light ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
    ... it has to do with describing the propagation of particles. ... "According to Feynman's sum over paths method photons will travel ... >>the probability to find a photon. ... > wave is non-zero, but you say not that it is possible, but you instead ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: a programm
    ... into it by any authoritarian measure. ... Waves and particles are the same thing. ... when we distinguish a wave or particle ... physics' of it, it only means that it has a predictive behavior. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Episode from the history of physics.
    ... then the laws of physics are the cause of the wave. ... The laws of physics cannot CAUSE anything. ... There is nothing in electric charge that says, ... molecules are in random motion like the moles in an ideal gas is an ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading