- #36
pelastration
- 165
- 0
Protonman,
you made some interesting points, David too.
Nereid asked some open questions about predictions.
Keep talking/posting. Don't get upset.
If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?
In summary, the conversation revolves around the concept of an "ether" and its role in discussing light as a wave. While some argue that a medium is necessary for a wave to propagate, others believe that light could be self-propagating without needing a medium. However, Einstein's theories suggest that gravity fields act as a kind of "ether" by regulating the speed of light in different environments. This understanding of the role of an "ether" has evolved over time, with Einstein's original "constancy" postulate changing in his 1911 theory.
you made some interesting points, David too.
Nereid asked some open questions about predictions.
Keep talking/posting. Don't get upset.
- #37
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
I wasn't aware that I had proposed any methods
First, I asked a yes/no question as to knowledge you currently possess.
Next was a compound question - do you have alternative theories (etc), a yes/no as to your own ideas. If no, OK; if yes, then how about the predictions?
Since you began this thread with a question about the wave nature of light and "Ether", I am curious as to whether you think GR inadequate in some way, and/or have a good alternative. My two questions are concrete ways of asking.
- #38
protonman
- 285
- 0
I don't have to propose an alternative. Sounds like all you are saying 'well we don't have any better ideas so I guess we'll use this one.' All I am doing is showing the illogical nature of some things physics has proposed. Since you made the statement you need to defend it, not me.Originally posted by Nereid
I wasn't aware that I had proposed any methods
First, I asked a yes/no question as to knowledge you currently possess.
Next was a compound question - do you have alternative theories (etc), a yes/no as to your own ideas. If no, OK; if yes, then how about the predictions?
Since you began this thread with a question about the wave nature of light and "Ether", I am curious as to whether you think GR inadequate in some way, and/or have a good alternative. My two questions are concrete ways of asking.
- #39
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
I checked; I didn't make any statements, I asked two questions.
I checked; I didn't make any statements, I asked two questions.
This is a statement; Russ asked you why it is impossible, and also asked you if you could prove it (two questions; not statements)
Imagine I am a slow pupil in your high school physics class. "Teacher protonman, I really don't understand why it is impossible to talk about a wave without a medium of propogation. Could you please explain it to me? I'd really like to know. I know that you're very busy, so if you could just tell me which physics textbook has a good explanation, and I'll go read it up there."
- #40
protonman
- 285
- 0
First I would tell the student they are an idiot. Then I would ask them what a wave is. By definition it is the the vertical oscilatory motion of a medium. The 'wave' itself is nothing more than the motion of the medium. It is not some independent physical entity. Without a medium it is nonsense to talk about a wave. Then I would remind them they were an idiot.
- #41
Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,255
- 66
To continue the part of the student.
Then I'd have to ask about Maxwell's equations. If a changing Electric field creates a changing Magnetic field where is the medium? What is moving?
Do you have any experimental verification of what is moving?
Then I'd have to ask about Maxwell's equations. If a changing Electric field creates a changing Magnetic field where is the medium? What is moving?
Do you have any experimental verification of what is moving?
- #42
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 28
You should go make fun of all those people who talk about sound waves then!
- #43
GRQC
- 163
- 0
Whatever, enough of this nonsense already.
If you were really a teacher, I would be offended that you have the audacity to make this claim, based on this statement. But it's too obvious that you are are nothing of the kind, as I have always suspected you to be. You're no doubt having a great laugh at your efforts to troll this message board. But quite frankly, you've solidified the image I've had of you since your first assertion that you are a teacher and care about the critical thinking skills of your students. You never fooled me.
Last edited:
- #44
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
As a student, who knows herself to be a little slow but who is nonetheless tenacious, I was rather hurt by your response. So I went and looked up a couple of physics textbooks for myself. What I found was much more like what Integral and Hurkyl briefly mentioned than your definition.
So I would like, respectfully and humbly, to ask you again - please tell me the name of a physics textbook which provides a definition of a wave like the one you gave, and explains sound and light (or electromagnetic waves in general) in terms of the words in your definition.
Regarding the 'idiot' term: I spoke with my Chemistry teacher about this, and she got quite angry. First, she said that there's no evidence in pedagogical theory (or practice) that gratuitous insults do anything but harm a student's ability to learn. Second, she said that a teacher should *always* encourage her students to ask questions about something they don't understand, work independently, and foster their curiosity. Third, she said that our school has a clear policy about language "Any foul or hostile language used in class will not be tolerated. This includes any derogatory statements and profanity. Direct or indirect personal attacks are strictly not permitted. Insults and negative attitudes are not allowed." She encouraged me to go back to you and ask my questions again, and said that if you continue to break the school's policies, she will report you to the Head Teacher.
- #45
pelastration
- 165
- 0
Maxwell
Nereid,
have you even seen this quote of Maxwell?
"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
I found that on a website of Joseph Newman, never found other oringinal references. But it fits in my ideas about multi-layered spacetime where membrane friction creates all other interactions.
Nereid,
have you even seen this quote of Maxwell?
"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
I found that on a website of Joseph Newman, never found other oringinal references. But it fits in my ideas about multi-layered spacetime where membrane friction creates all other interactions.
- #46
protonman
- 285
- 0
Prove that a changing E field produces a changing B field.
- #47
protonman
- 285
- 0
If you take what you read on the internet personally that is your problem. I don't see why what I say has any effect on you. My view is just one person and if you don't like it then just ignore it.
P.S. Tell your chem teacher they are an idiot.
- #48
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 28
Prove they're an idiot.
- #49
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 760
- 2
Am I doing any statement about what the Bible should say?
- #50
Deeviant
- 285
- 0
I know were all having fun laughing at protonboys trolling, but could we get to the banning the flaming troll part already?
- #51
protonman
- 285
- 0
Because based on unsubstantiated statements on the internet the teacher suggested that I be reported to the school. This is a person who doesn't think. You call me a bad teacher look at this persons advice.
- #52
protonman
- 285
- 0
I don't know why everytime I make an agrument that can't be refuted or you just don't understand it is called trolling. If you understood my comments and arguments you would see that it is not trolling. But, because you can't see the logic and connection between what I say and the topic you need to call me a troll.
I know what you are going to say now. How I have shown no logic and there no connection. This, of course, will be merely stated without any actual evidence or a particular case. Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove you point. Then I will easily refute you trite argument and the process will start all over again. This is so predictable. With the exception of David all of you follow the exact same pattern. You are so predictable. Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
- #53
protonman
- 285
- 0
Not quite sure what this means. Is this English?
- #54
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
Please tell me the name of the physics textbook (or textbooks) that you use to teach physics, especially the part about waves.
- #55
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
What is your argument?
What evidence have you requested?
I don't know why everytime I ask a question about something I don't understand in what you write you ignore me or call me an idiot. If you were a real physics teacher you would see that you are being inconsistent. But, because you can see the logic and connection between what you say and the topic you must be a troll.
I know what you are going to say now. How I have shown no logic and there no connection. This, of course, will be merely stated without any actual evidence or a particular case. Only after my repeated requests for a evidence will an attempt be made to prove your point. Then I will easily refute your trite argument and the process will start all over again. This is so predictable. You follow the exact same pattern. You are so predictable. Maybe I should publish a theory. The experimental evidence is overwhelming.
- #56
protonman
- 285
- 0
If you don't like the definition refute it on its own merits. Not on what book it came from.
- #57
Deeviant
- 285
- 0
If it was just me saying your a troll, then you might have a case. If two people say your a troll, you'd be losing ground. If nearly everybody on the board agrees your a troll, then it is more than likely true.
And I would really like to know which publication you intend to publish your story on. It would be interesting to measure how quickly they reject your "theory" and cite it as "meaningless babble".
If being different and thinking "outside the box" means being disrespectful, brash, and wrong, then I would rather be one of the nameless majority.
- #58
protonman
- 285
- 0
Taking candy from a baby man...
Most people believed the Earth was flat at one time. Does this mean it was most likely true?
Same one all you people publish in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious"
Again show me where I am wrong. P.S. please provide evidence.
- #59
Deeviant
- 285
- 0
Unfortunely for you, this is not the old world. Many of the people on this board, and I'm sure all of the mentors have a very solid grip on the Scientific Method. Having agreement between a large and varied body of scientists(doesn't get much more diverse then a internet forum like this) is how science puts forth actual results nowadays. Upon looking at the history of your posts, it is obvious why you referenced old world mentality: You sir, are stil living in the old world, at least when it comes to your science.
I do agree with you about something however:
I would publish the fact that you are full of crap and produce nothing except for meaningless babble in "The Journal of Blatantly Obvious."
I would provide evidence of your wrongness, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the hell you are actually trying to say and in fact I would bet you don't even know what the hell you are trying to say. It seems that you never actually say anything, you just provide a never ending stream insulting commentary( A definitive mark of a forum troll).
What exactely makes you think insulting people has anything to do with science? Perhaps, you find a better fit in politics?
- #60
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT "What Can be Done about Trolls?
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored."
When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.
However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored."
Last edited by a moderator:
- #61
protonman
- 285
- 0
I agree. Let's ignore the troll. What user is he?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #62
Zero
Is this thread even about anything anymore, or shall we lock it and be done with it?
- #63
Eyesaw
- 129
- 0
Please list these experiments. Or just one at a time if you please.
I'd like to hear how SR time dilation has been tested in particular. But really, Einstein himself said that SR was not applicable if spacetime was not flat so if all experiments are done in a gravitational field, how can anyone claim SR has been tested? This seems a bit disingenuous at least.
The only tests that can be performed where spacetime is not flat are GR effects. Since Einstein himself said space-time is a kind of aether, all tests that are claimed to confirm GR then have confirmed the ether.
Last edited:
- #64
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 3,401
- 3
Here's a list of experimental tests of SR, and http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/ . Someone else may have a more comprehensive or up-to-date list.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #65
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 28
The same way one can say classical mechanics has been tested. Experiments have been performed, and they agreed with results of SR.
One of the basic principles of GR is that, to put it loosely, it looks like SR on small scales. (such as a laboratory) So, if GR is an accurate description of reality, then SR should be an accurate description of reality on the small scale.
(Just like classical mechanics is an accurate description of the macroscopic world at low velocities)
I would like to point out that the "aether" of GR is not a "classical" aether. (Just like the particles of QM are not classical particles)
- #66
Eyesaw
- 129
- 0
Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go
over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test
can be claimed to have confirmed SR as I keep hearing,
especially from this fanatic russ_waters guy.
If a theory is based on non gravity, how can it ever be applicable
to the real world? This is especially puzzling when space-time
itself in GR is endowed with these gravitational effects so that no travel is possible by any matter through it without being affected in a gravitational manner. Using GR tests to confirm SR is very weak inductive reasoning if not a logical fallacy entirely. How do we know that in the absence of gravity, matter will move at all? How do we know that matter doesn't generate its own gravitational fields so
that one can never have a flat spacetime if matter exists? What evidence do we have that in the absence of space-time, light can move at all or even exist?
Last edited by a moderator:
- #67
Eyesaw
- 129
- 0
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The same way one can say classical mechanics has been tested. Experiments have been performed, and they agreed with results of SR.
One of the basic principles of GR is that, to put it loosely, it looks like SR on small scales. (such as a laboratory) So, if GR is an accurate description of reality, then SR should be an accurate description of reality on the small scale.
(Just like classical mechanics is an accurate description of the macroscopic world at low velocities)
I would like to point out that the "aether" of GR is not a "classical" aether. (Just like the particles of QM are not classical particles)
I think you have provided a very good example of how inductive reasoning can lead to conclusions which conflict with reality.
It's the very reason that classical mechanics had to be replaced
by quantum mechanics: assumptions we made about nature on the macroscopic scale did not accurately describe the quantum world,
even though inductively it should. In the same way, the assumptions about matter and motion through spacetime in GR may be very different from how nature behaves in the limit of GR.
Just as it is ridiculous to claim that tests on classical mechanics
are confirmations of Quantum mechanics, SR cannot be said to have been confirmed by tests of GR. But it's actually even worse since at least in Qm, we are still describing reality and not an imaginary universe as in SR.
Last edited:
- #68
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 760
- 2
Because there are many situations in which the gravitational field is so close to a flat metric (i.e., what you call "non gravity") that the effect of the curvature is extremely small compared to the SR effects.
Pretty much all experimental science works this way: you care for the main effects first, neglecting other things that produce small deviations, and verify that your theory accounts for what you can measure.
You never can take into account all minute distorsions due to all imaginable effects, but that is ok because they usually introduce deviations that are smaller than your experimental precision. Think of any theory with which you are comfortable. Say, thermodynamics. Does it take into account electromagnetic fields? QCD effects? Cosmic rays? radiation pressure? background radioactivity? no, but even when all of these effects are always present, the theory is still valid since it has been proven that the only important quantities are Volume, Pressure and Tempreature (how? by varying these quantities and observing if their correlation with experiment is consistent throughout many experiments, regardless of the values of all the other quantities).
- #69
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,482
- 10,812
I'm a little confused. Are you asking how any test can be valid if there is more than one effect at work? There are always multiple effects being observed in experiments - the trick is knowing what is doing what.
Some of the predictions of SR are extremely simple and testing them is a relative piece of cake. GPS clocks and time dilation (my favorite) for example. Both the SR and GR effects are specific and with the equations known you can test for both at the same time.
- #70
Deeviant
- 285
- 0
SR did have some shortcommings which is exactely why Einstien developed the General Theory of Relativity. GR does not blow up when objects are subjected to gravity(and neither does SR with GR). The principle of equivalence allows for gravity to be incorporated into Realativity quite nicely and also imples the local validity of SR. Oh yeah, there was just yet another successful experimental test of SR by Achim Peters of the University of Konstanz in Germany. I'll even give you a link http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/6/1/2
If your going to attack SR, then your really going attack GR as well, which, of course you couldn't do because it is such a wildly successful and widely proven theory. Even if GR & SR is not the final answer so to speak, they do have incredible explanatory power of the universe around us that we use everyday in science with a decree of precision that would be simply impossible for a theory that is just flat out wrong.
If you want more experimental confirmation, I would suggest you talk to any scientists that works with a particle accelerator, or any those that worked on the GPS sattelite network which needed timing so accurate had to be corrected for time dilation described by SR else they would be off by tens of meters.
The truth of the matter is that relativity works(both GR and SR). If you have something that works better, I'm all ears. If you want to continue asking "what ifs" until your face turns blue, be my guest, but you won't get very far in science by challenging realativity unless you have an alternate, more successful theory.