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: Tim BandTech.com on 4 Aug 2010 09:19 On Aug 3, 1:08 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrotenews: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* Nice link S*. Do you ever think of matter as waves? The soliton seems tantalizing, yet there is no necessary propagation of material is there? The standing wave analogy does not seem convincing, because there is no propagation, yet I see people granting standing wave equations and calling this a wave. This is not convincing and I'd like to see a stability criterion that would then allow derivation of the effect. Then when people state that matter is waves this conflict would be resolved. I suspect a rotational wave is more the proper paradigm, whose 'standing waves' then could provide interaction models. I guess I am suggesting a rotational soliton could be worthy. What do you think? I am not used to treating waves with care, and was trained to just think in terms of TEM type constructions, with additional dynamics explained away later. I'm ready to go the next level, but don't quite see the nuances as fundamental. Rather, I try to construct something new but sensible. - Tim
From: Szczepan Bialek on 4 Aug 2010 13:45 "Tim BandTech.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> wrote news:d01e5dc6-87f7-4efa-b8c1-1843eeb84f42(a)l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 3, 1:08 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >> wrotenews:955894d1-d6b5-4551-ae2a-cc9532695e5c(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >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* > > Nice link S*. Do you ever think of matter as waves? Kelvin and Helmholtz did. But they abandoned it. I do not even try. >The soliton seems > tantalizing, yet there is no necessary propagation of material is > there? Each real wave transfers mass. In ink printer it works . >The standing wave analogy does not seem convincing, because > there is no propagation, No propagation in the direction of wave propagation. Mass flow aside. For this reason the wave source attracts the mirror. >yet I see people granting standing wave > equations and calling this a wave. There are the two waves. If energy cannot flow aside (in a pipe, box) then it must convert to heat. >This is not convincing and I'd like > to see a stability criterion that would then allow derivation of the > effect. Then when people state that matter is waves this conflict > would be resolved. I suspect a rotational wave is more the proper > paradigm, whose 'standing waves' then could provide interaction > models. I guess I am suggesting a rotational soliton could be worthy. Each real wave has the two components. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift > What do you think? I am not used to treating waves with care, and was > trained to just think in terms of TEM type constructions, with > additional dynamics explained away later. I'm ready to go the next > level, but don't quite see the nuances as fundamental. Rather, I try > to construct something new but sensible. Pasma in the space behaves like jelly (Stokes ether). It do not rotate with the Earth. Rotate only with the Sun. For Stokes the transversal solitons were tantalizing. But remember "Each real wave has the two components". TEM are only virtual. Construct something new for real ISM (plasma and dust). It will be new for us not for NASA. S*
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 Aug 2010 03:29 On Aug 4, 10:45 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...(a)wp.pl> wrote: > Pasma in the space behaves like jelly (Stokes ether). It do not rotate with It does not, retard
From: Puppet_Sock on 12 Aug 2010 12:14 On Aug 3, 8:35 pm, Rock Brentwood <federation2...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > 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/thr... > > 2010 July 22 13:49: > > > > > However, the misconception relayed by the moderator (that, somehow, > > the quantized theory is qualitatively different) is wrong. Please try reading for comprehension. Your comprehension clearly stopped at the point you dishonestly snipped my post. I did not ask you to discuss the content of a moderator's note with respect to physics. I asked you to tell the moderator not to put physics content in moderator's notes. You will not find such a post in s.p.r. Socks
From: Szczepan Bialek on 13 Aug 2010 04:53
"Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote news:326e25f7-0be1-4650-9a7b-b0b2d19c0991(a)k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 3, 5:28 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> No it's not. There is always a medium. >Waves in modern physics exist without any medium. >You need to read a freshman textbook! >As usual you are living in the past. >Quote from Halliday and Resnick (a classic Freshman physics textbook): >"It is necessary to have a a medium for the transmission of mechanical waves. No medium is required for the transmission of electromagnetic waves, light passing freely, for example, through the vacuum of outer space from the stars." In the vacuum of outer space is the rare plasma (ISM). It is the medium for light. S* |