Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: jimp on 3 Aug 2010 14:08 In sci.physics.electromag Szczepan Bialek <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote: > > "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote > news:955894d1-d6b5-4551-ae2a-cc9532695e5c(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 3, 2:04 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: >> >>> > http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html >> >>> "Webster's dictionary defines a wave as "a disturbance or variation that >> transfers energy progressively from point to point in a medium and that >> may >> take the form of an elastic deformation or of a variation of pressure, >> electric or magnetic intensity, electric potential, or temperature." > >>And that is a poor definition. Completely inaccurate in fact. You may > take it up with the publishers of Webster's. > >>In physics, a wave is a phenomenon that occurs in a physical system > that carries energy and momentum from one place to another. This > phenomenon is exhibited in any system wherein relevant laws of physics > governing the system take a particular mathematical form called the > "wave equation," so called because the solutions to the equation are > waves. In some systems, a medium is present and the relevant laws of > physics pertain to the medium. In other systems, a medium is not > present. > > You are in school physics. > > In real physics are solitons: > http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/Solitons/solitons.html > > For them is also the proper math. But it is enough to know that "a > disturbance or variation that transfers energy progressively from point to > point " ends when the source stop working. So each disturbance is not > simetrical soliton. > It is known also from Stokes. > >>> No medium no waves. >>> So the "vacuum" is not empty. There are plasma and dust. > > Do you agree? > S* That you are a babbling mental case that posts word salad? Yes, I agree with that. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Autymn D. C. on 3 Aug 2010 17:23 On Aug 2, 12:04 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: > "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrotenews:e903f906-4035-4184-9eea-09972eecd819(a)v6g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 29, 3:44 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >This is cretinose. The wavespeed for woom (sound) is swifter for > > thicker media but not the wavespeed for liht. See Snell and Maxwell's > equations. > > Equations are for students. > > Scientist should measure. > > The result are: In the wire the electric waves travel with the speed of "result are"? retard. > light but the sound waves very,very slower. > In the plasma (ions and electrons - like in the wire) the results are the > same. In a wire elèctric waves fare at half celerity, and èkètic waves much slowlier, wherefore the medium for each is very thin (conduction band elèctròns) and thick (nuclei and elèctròns). -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 3 Aug 2010 17:27 On Aug 2, 12:05 pm, j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics.electromag Szczepan Bialek <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: > > There are dipoles. > > You must place them in a medium to have a wave. > > Air, water, solid or plasma. > > S* > > Babbling nonsense. Yours. The medium is everywhere if there is matter anywhere.
From: Autymn D. C. on 3 Aug 2010 17:30 On Aug 2, 4:00 am, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 1:45 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 11:47 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 2:28 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > "maxwell" <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message > > > > > led to the standard view that "QM is the final form of micro physical > > > > > theory". I, for one, don't think so. > > > > > You are forgetting the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Chemistry made > > > > perfect sense after that. > > > > In my considerable experience, FreddiFizzle, Chemistry never makes > > > "perfect sense". Where is Uncle Al when you need him? > > > why not? > > "Where is Uncle Al when you need him?" > > Uncle Al quit this ng on 24 June. See research pages. Dolt who can't read, why doesn't it perfect sense?
From: Rock Brentwood on 3 Aug 2010 20:35
2010 July 29 15:11 Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 4:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the > > stick could equivocate. > > I propose an experiment. You humans ... > Experiment: > Find a recent posting in s.p.research where the moderator > has inserted physics content, and nothing else, as a > moderation note. Reply to this posting... .... are so predictable, one can not only tell what you're going to say and do long before you even get around to it, but even respond to it beforehand. Done and done. The following -- which is in (advanced) reply to your experiment challenge -- achieves and trumps your experiment (it flat out calls the moderator wrong), thus also completely refuting the other point "moderation is censorship". Note the dates and times. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/d104b0364ae8ab17?hl=en 2010 July 22 13:49: > However, the misconception relayed by the moderator (that, somehow, > the quantized theory is qualitatively different) is wrong. |