|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 7, 2011 17:57:33 GMT 1
Nope, didn't understand any of that.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 7, 2011 18:07:24 GMT 1
Nope, didn't understand any of that. Of course not, sheer gibberish
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 7, 2011 18:42:53 GMT 1
Nope, didn't understand any of that. Of course not, sheer gibberish Yeah, yeah same ole same ole from the board time-wasters! YOU explain it then, if you think you can do any better, rather than this knee-jerk, anything STA says is crap....................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 7, 2011 23:10:20 GMT 1
Oh, dear.
I am afraid the confusion is all with you. Here am I, in plain english, suggesting that;
a) In a field with gradients so small that we cannot detect them, there will still be a field, through which waves will travel. And, as Maxwell's equations for the propagation of a EM wave do not require a field, some use this artefact to say that such fields do not exist.
b) The frequency of a wave is dependent upon the density of the field. therefore a wave originating in an area of high field density will experience a drop in frequency as it moves to an area of les density
c) We know that the forces of gravity, magnetism and electric charge decline as the inverse square of distance, so we can say that in theory these forces must extent right to the ends of the Universe. And if they do then their fields must also extend in this way.
d) If EM waves originate from places with very very strong EM fields, such as from stars .. then their frequencies ( aka Red Shift) will drop as the inverse square of distance from the source.
Don't forget I am talking about entirely static fields, of the sort you see around permanent magnets , and permanent electrets ..( ps anybody played with those things?)
If this possibility is true then there would be profound implications for cosmology.
And, if brightness is directly related to the source's EM field strenth, then one way of detecting this inverse-square effect could be to see if red-shifts of individual stars correlate with their brightness.
Could anyone say whether or not such a test has been done?
( PPS...STA .... I meant; how could you determine the earth's gravitational field if you were in an enclosed orbiting space-box and could not look out ...or even in a cave at the centre of the earth..?)
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 0:04:11 GMT 1
Hi All! I had a quick google, and this came up; www.newtonphysics.on.ca/quasars/index.htmlLooks like the NSERC supported Marmet on this paper, which says that cosmology is indeed in a bit of a state. Wow! Any comment, STA?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 2:55:33 GMT 1
You have just confused medium with field. And also gradient of a potential (equals field), with gradient of field. Waves don't travel through a field, waves are a travelling field.
It may seem like plain english to you, but it's still total nonsense. Except to someone like Humpty-dumpty, who makes words mean what he wants them to mean when he uses them!\
As I said before, meaningless word salad. Who anyone would persist in creating this nonsense is beyond me....................
Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow..............
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 11:13:34 GMT 1
You have just confused medium with field. And also gradient of a potential (equals field), with gradient of field. Waves don't travel through a field, waves are a travelling field. It may seem like plain english to you, but it's still total nonsense. Except to someone like Humpty-dumpty, who makes words mean what he wants them to mean when he uses them!\ As I said before, meaningless word salad. Who anyone would persist in creating this nonsense is beyond me.................... Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.............. You're still not explaining anything and I am keen to learn. The English language is a wonderful tool with which to communicate ideas so why aren't you making full use of it? Is it done on purpose?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 12:09:02 GMT 1
STA , I see your problem!
NO! it is YOU who are confused, you have used the ordinary term field when you really mean force-field ....
Now, having pointed out your basic error, you should be able to go back and understand what has actually been said. Hopefully we could then expect some more relevant comment.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 16:49:56 GMT 1
Force-field is a term you'll find in sci-fi, not in physics. There are various meanings of the word field, but I assume anyone could guess, from the context, that we meant field as in em field, not the flowery-grassy thing with cows grazing.
Magnetic FIELD
Electric FIELD
Gravitational FIELD
but if you use it to talk PHYSICS, you have to understand the words that physics uses (borrowed from ordinary english) to describe concepts particular to physics.
To get back to field and medium.
Think about sound waves. These are waves OF particle displacements/pressure changes, hence intimately related to the things which create the pressure or are displaced -- the particles in a gas, or the atoms in a solid substance which is the MEDIUM for the wave.
Think about water waves -- waves OF displacement of the water surface.
But with em waves, there isn't a THING being displaced -- its just the fairly abstract pattern of electric and magnetic fields varying in space and time. There is no THING that the em field is a displacement of. It would be like a wave of displacements of water molecules, but without the water. Which is why some people can't getb their heads round the idea of a wave without a medium in which the wave propagates. ANd you can't cook one up by trying to make it be the disaplcements of the thing that measures the displacements. That would still be trying to have displacements of the starting position of water molecules without the water molecules - it wouldn't help if your problem was there must be a SOMETHING carrying the wave, that a wave can't exist without a thing that is waved.
Of course, you still haven't looked at your next glaring error:
The wavelength and speed of an em wave depends upon the exact properties of the medium, WHEN that wave passes through a medium (such as air or water). BUT what DOES NOT change is the frequency (unless you have some specifically freaky non-linear optical material).
Things may LOOK different through glass, because glass doesn't transmit all frequencies equally well (such as it blocks UV, so you don't get sunburn indoors), but blue light that gets through glass is still the same blue and same frequency.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 17:41:52 GMT 1
Speaker, I do not wish to come over as patronising but I feel it's about time someone had a serious talk with you.
When some poster asks a question you must always try to be aware of their level of knowledge regarding the subject matter. Now, it is of little use giving an in-depth answer to a basic question about physics, say, because all you will achieve is to befuddle the questioner and probably put them off asking you future questions. It is much more productive to provide a (what I like to call) 'top down' answer which directly links to the question and that can be reasonably understood by somebody who has little knowledge. That way, the questioner will feel he/she has learnt something of value and be more inclined to ask more questions in order to more fully understand the subject. Unfortunately, STA, you have a tendency to provide answers to questions that are far too removed from the level appropriate to the question; you probably can't help it as you possess specialist knowledge but that doesn't help people to understand the subject, now does it?
Obviously, is somebody asks a question that seems to indicate they have a much more advanced grasp of the subject then it is correct to try to answer at a more advanced level. Ok?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 19:16:33 GMT 1
I am aware -- Carnyx is a total idiot! The only person who seems to have a problem seeing that is himself -- and his stuff is so far off beam that it isn't even WRONG.
As I keep saying, it's just putting words together in a random manner, with no idea of what any of them actually mean. There isn't anywhere to start with that, when there is no knowledge to build on. Like someone trying to compose a letter in french by just picking words at random from a dictionary and trying to get the grammar right by trial and error. They MAY occassionally get the grammar right, but the only sensible advice you can give is -- learn what the words mean BEFORE you try to make a sentence with them.
Like field, like medium, like em wave etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 20:02:59 GMT 1
I am aware -- Carnyx is a total idiot! The only person who seems to have a problem seeing that is himself -- and his stuff is so far off beam that it isn't even WRONG. As I keep saying, it's just putting words together in a random manner, with no idea of what any of them actually mean. There isn't anywhere to start with that, when there is no knowledge to build on. Like someone trying to compose a letter in french by just picking words at random from a dictionary and trying to get the grammar right by trial and error. They MAY occassionally get the grammar right, but the only sensible advice you can give is -- learn what the words mean BEFORE you try to make a sentence with them. Like field, like medium, like em wave etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 20:10:18 GMT 1
STA, You really do 'run off at the mouth' as they say in the States:
LISTEN;
1.The detectable magnetic influence of the sort that exists around a permanent magnet was called a magnetic force field, or 'flux' when I was a boy.
2. It could be said that whilst this force field would get weaker and weaker, in theory it would extend right to the edges of the universe.
3. Because of the existence of this 'flux' it would then be possible to move the magnet about and so create magnetic waves in this otherwise static force-field. Indeed, you can do that, and see a nearby compass needle deflect. The analogy was making waves on a pond by rocking a floating boat.
Anyway, suffice to say that the same thing applied to the electrostatic field, but the fooling around was confined to experiments with 'static charge' from hairbrushing, and bits of paper.
Now given the idea of a general magnetic force-field stretching like a rubber sheet across the universe, and another one representing the for the electric field, then we can see that there may well be this pair of undetectable stationary fields that are capable of supporting and sustaining travelling waves.
After all, we have the same analogy for Gravity, and people are predicting gravity waves, aren't they?
And as the density of these three types of medium coincidentally decrease with 1/distance^2, we could also expect the frequency of the waves in these media also to drop with distance. In other words, there may be an alternative interpretation of Red Shift
But here is something you said that is proof positive that you have completely misread what I am actually saying!
I respond;
a) Sound waves passing into a less dense region of air will drop in pitch.
b) But, I am talking about the idea that EM waves propagate in a hypothetical E/M medium. And if such a medium exists, then it is likely that the frequency of EM waves will drop as they pass into less dense areas of this medium.
However, until you have grasped this, you cannot begin to follow what I have actually been saying.
So, STA, your contribution to this thread to date has been worse than useless ...
Do try harder to keep up ..
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 20:46:12 GMT 1
Well, that may have been the usage in victorian times, but nowadays it is called a magnetic field (and FLUX means a different and specific thing, such as the total magnetic flux through a loop, which depends on the magnetic field strength, direction, and the area of the loop).
Stationary fields ARE detectable, this is one mistake. You can have ripples superimposed on a ZERO background field, hence your 'support' argument is invalid.
No they don't. What actually happens is that the attenuation of a specific frequency goes way up as the mean-free path of gas molecules approaches the wavelength. Hence longer wavelengths can get through less-dense air, whereas higher-frequencies, shorter wavelengths will not. Hence for a source with a range of frequencies (like actual sounds), the higher-frequencies are lost, they are NOT converted into lower frequencies.
you really should understand the basics before you post!
Hence since you got it wrong for sound waves, no wonder you come out with nonsense when you try to apply it to em waves.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 8, 2011 21:51:42 GMT 1
STA, Bollocks. You are wrong.
Sound waves will drop in pitch as they go from a region of higher density to a region of lower density
As would EM waves, if there were an electro-magnetic medium. And in this case their frequency would drop in proportion to 1.D^2 .... which would then have implications for Red Shift-based distance calculations, Black Holes, Big Bangs and the rest of the current cosmology.
|
|