The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 13:35:22 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


So why did you ask a stupid question?

I'll ask you the same 'stupid' question.

Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?

I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
is as ****ing stupid as you are.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif

That isn't standing wave.

It is at the source. You said it yourself, the east-going ripple
added to the west-going ripple sum to a standing wave. Same
with the north-going and south-going waves. The amplitude
at the source must be infinite.



You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.

This is a standing wave:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...dingwave3D.gif



Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.

THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.

Not AT the source, it doesn't!





Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
are relative.

......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
entertainment....

...especially when we have an ozzie stooge to play the role of Eric
in Morcambe and Wise or Stan in Laurel and Hardy.

You're showing your age there.

I'm younger than you but I'm Wise and I'm Hardy.



and a violin string in air emits sound
at right angles to "the two waves travelling in opposite directions"
that you "proved" mathematically.
Those three waves are at right angles, Wilson.

Don't be an idiot. The string itself causes the disturbances in the
air.
The
wave emitted by one side is 180 behind the other.

Don't be an idiot. The coax itself causes the disturbances in the
electromagnetic field. The standing wave emitted by one side is
180 behind the other.

don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject....That's Tusseladd's
tactics.

The subject is
"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
It's well known bull**** that you are squirming over.

Andro, please stop making a fool of yourself. I feel quite embarrased for
your sake.
The above equation describes a string that is shaped like a half sine
curve
along its length. The amplitude along its whole length varies as sin(xt),
where t is time and x is a constant.

Standing waves don't travel in x. The wood moves along the screw
when the screw turns.
k is a constant, A is a constant amplitude, wt is an angle, x is a
distance and not the argument of the sine function. No wonder
you are confused, you get your variable names mixed up.
The only one making a fool of himself is you.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:56:39 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
****ing bull****, the argument for sine is
an angle. You always were a closet relativist.

Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes the
position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus time.

Get it?

No, I don't. The term 'y' in A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.
You always were a deranged closet relativist.
Get it?

A is amplitude in the y direction.... obviously.

sin(theta) is the altitude in the i direction.... obviously.

there ain't no i needed here.


It is a well known physical principle.
If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would
know
that.

If ozzie sheep shaggers were taught mathematics they wouldn't mumble
"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
It's well known bull****.

Don't you know how to add two sine functions....it's quite elementary, you
know.

For a string, there is only one sine function.
What two sine functions?

One determines its shape, the other the rate at which it goes up and down.

Get it now?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:41:35 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?

I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
is as ****ing stupid as you are.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif

That isn't standing wave.

It is at the source. You said it yourself, the east-going ripple
added to the west-going ripple sum to a standing wave. Same
with the north-going and south-going waves. The amplitude
at the source must be infinite.



You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.

This is a standing wave:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...dingwave3D.gif

That is a combination of TWO standing waves, both of the 2nd overtone. One
lags the other by 90 deg.

Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.

THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.

Not AT the source, it doesn't!

It does.

Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
are relative.

......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
entertainment....

...especially when we have an ozzie stooge to play the role of Eric
in Morcambe and Wise or Stan in Laurel and Hardy.

You're showing your age there.

I'm younger than you but I'm Wise and I'm Hardy.




The subject is
"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
It's well known bull**** that you are squirming over.

Andro, please stop making a fool of yourself. I feel quite embarrased for
your sake.
The above equation describes a string that is shaped like a half sine
curve
along its length. The amplitude along its whole length varies as sin(xt),
where t is time and x is a constant.

Standing waves don't travel in x. The wood moves along the screw
when the screw turns.
k is a constant, A is a constant amplitude, wt is an angle, x is a
distance and not the argument of the sine function. No wonder
you are confused, you get your variable names mixed up.
The only one making a fool of himself is you.

Andro, as a friend I want to help you but I cannot continue to teach you
everything you should have learnt in your youth.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:56:39 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

A.sin(kx - dx/dt .t) is relativity speak and
****ing bull****, the argument for sine is
an angle. You always were a closet relativist.

Th sum of two waves moving in opposite directions along x describes
the
position of the elements of the string in the y direction, versus
time.

Get it?

No, I don't. The term 'y' in A.sin(kx-vt) and A.sin(kx+vt) is missing.
You always were a deranged closet relativist.
Get it?

A is amplitude in the y direction.... obviously.

sin(theta) is the altitude in the i direction.... obviously.

there ain't no i needed here.

Oh, but there is.

exp(i.theta) = cos(theta) + i.sin(theta)

It is a well known mathematical principle.
Some twerp claimed
"A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.

If ozzie sheep shaggers were made to learn some basic mathematics,
they would know that was impossible.
2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] is the ALTItude in the i direction when A = 1...
obviously.



It is a well known physical principle.
If pommie engineers were made to learn some basic physics, they would
know
that.

If ozzie sheep shaggers were taught mathematics they wouldn't mumble
"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
It's well known bull****.

Don't you know how to add two sine functions....it's quite elementary,
you
know.

For a string, there is only one sine function.
What two sine functions?

One determines its shape, the other the rate at which it goes up and down.

Get it now?

Nope. I can assure you the rate at which it goes up and down is w.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:41:35 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:53:57 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


Why do water waves carry energy in one particular direction?

I told you, they don't. You said that was correct, so your question
is as ****ing stupid as you are.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif

That isn't standing wave.

It is at the source. You said it yourself, the east-going ripple
added to the west-going ripple sum to a standing wave. Same
with the north-going and south-going waves. The amplitude
at the source must be infinite.



You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.

This is a standing wave:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...dingwave3D.gif

That is a combination of TWO standing waves,

Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. One represents the electric field and
the other represents the magnetic.

both of the 2nd overtone.

What 2nd overtone?

One lags the other by 90 deg.


Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. The phase shift is in time,
not space. They are displaced in space by 90 deg. too, but that
angle is around the x-axis.
Tusseladd dreams they are not phase shifted in time, which is
why he makes so many cockups. He can't think in 3D, let alone
3D + duration.




Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.

THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.

Not AT the source, it doesn't!

It does.

No it doesn't, the exact centre only moves up and down, not sideways.
Look again:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif



Good idea, then they'd learn not to babble about travelling waves
or "velocity = wavelength * frequency" because all velocities
are relative.

......and pommie engineers are always relatively good for some light
entertainment....

...especially when we have an ozzie stooge to play the role of Eric
in Morcambe and Wise or Stan in Laurel and Hardy.

You're showing your age there.

I'm younger than you but I'm Wise and I'm Hardy.




The subject is
"For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)] " -- Wilson.
It's well known bull**** that you are squirming over.

Andro, please stop making a fool of yourself. I feel quite embarrased
for
your sake.
The above equation describes a string that is shaped like a half sine
curve
along its length. The amplitude along its whole length varies as
sin(xt),
where t is time and x is a constant.

Standing waves don't travel in x. The wood moves along the screw
when the screw turns.
k is a constant, A is a constant amplitude, wt is an angle, x is a
distance and not the argument of the sine function. No wonder
you are confused, you get your variable names mixed up.
The only one making a fool of himself is you.

Andro, as a friend I want to help you but I cannot continue to teach you
everything you should have learnt in your youth.

Wilson, I learnt to think even in my youth when you were selling 6V
VW camper vans for a living. You, on the other hand, were indoctrinated.
You can't help me, you have no understanding of mathematics.
Help Tusseladd instead, he's younger than both of us. Dork is
hopeless, he's about 120 by now.

The Infamous FumbleMumble:
http://www.tinyurl.com/FumbleMumble

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years. "
Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.
T = 9.5 years, Dork has aged 19 years, he stayed at home.

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 00:51:52 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:41:35 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

You don't even know what one is, you silly old pom.

This is a standing wave:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...dingwave3D.gif

That is a combination of TWO standing waves,

Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. One represents the electric field and
the other represents the magnetic.

both of the 2nd overtone.

What 2nd overtone?

Do a course in physics.

One lags the other by 90 deg.


Yep. Right on the money, Wilson. The phase shift is in time,
not space. They are displaced in space by 90 deg. too, but that
angle is around the x-axis.
Tusseladd dreams they are not phase shifted in time, which is
why he makes so many cockups. He can't think in 3D, let alone
3D + duration.

Lots of books say they are in phase in time.... but I'm with you on that
one.


Clearly the water wave has no velocity at the source or it wouldn't
still be there. Perhaps the source is a singularity.

THe water wave in your demo has a velocity relative to the source.

Not AT the source, it doesn't!

It does.

No it doesn't, the exact centre only moves up and down, not sideways.
Look again:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/ripple.gif

It isn't the wave that moves up and down. It is the water surface


Standing waves don't travel in x. The wood moves along the screw
when the screw turns.
k is a constant, A is a constant amplitude, wt is an angle, x is a
distance and not the argument of the sine function. No wonder
you are confused, you get your variable names mixed up.
The only one making a fool of himself is you.

Andro, as a friend I want to help you but I cannot continue to teach you
everything you should have learnt in your youth.

Wilson, I learnt to think even in my youth when you were selling 6V
VW camper vans for a living. You, on the other hand, were indoctrinated.
You can't help me, you have no understanding of mathematics.

sin(x+y) = sin(x)cos(y)+ cos(x)sin(y)
sin(x-y) = sin(x)cos(y)- cos(x)sin(y)

sin(x+y)+ sin(x-y) = 2sin(x)cos(y)

Therefo sin(A)+sin(B) = 2sin(1/2(A+B)).cos(1/2(A-B))

Get i now?

Help Tusseladd instead, he's younger than both of us.

Tusseladd finds himself in a difficult position. Everything he writes is
nonsense, as I have pointed out quite convincingly.

Dork is
hopeless, he's about 120 by now.

....with a 3yo mind..

The Infamous FumbleMumble:
http://www.tinyurl.com/FumbleMumble

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years. "
Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.
T = 9.5 years, Dork has aged 19 years, he stayed at home.

So T= 5 but the stay at home ages by 6? Very interesting!!!