The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump

In , on 05/29/2012
at 01:06 AM, "Androcles" said:

We have to be pedantic,

But you aren't

Radio waves are monochromatic.

Not even close, which you admit when you mention FM.

A radio wave is a train of photons.

Nonsense. A typical radio wave is a mixed state and may not even have
a specific number of photons.

Use Google.

Starting with the seqrch term QFT.

What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to is
ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again and again.

Probably because it's arrant nonsense.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:16:56 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide...ide/index.aspx
A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
a wavelike property.

All right, if you want to be pedantic, let's agree that 'aspects of their
observed behavior exhibit regular periodicity'.

We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
directions.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...


ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.

Yes it does.
ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
the air valve would move up and down.

It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.

Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.

Partly true.
For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have what
you see if you photograph a water wave.
If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally at
the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as you
see on the photograph.

However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics IS
physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a 'wavelength'..

Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

It is a totaly different entity.

No it isn't.

Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

The photons in them don't have to be.

A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency

Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).

The photon density varies at 100MHz.

although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute wavelength'.

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.

Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.

A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.

That's very clever..

A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.

A radio signal is not made of one photon.

Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred years.....BLOODY
LONG PHOTON.....

What does Daisy say?

Not true.


Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
accelerating
charge in the antenna.

Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
spaced and some passing others.

You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted
continuously
from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.

"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a ****wit
like Shuba. He's the kind of **** that always claims "You don't
understand..."

He IS a ****wit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us in
peace.

What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.

They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.

I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small so
gigahertz frequencies are no problem.

Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
tractor tyres.

Engineers should not get involved with physics.

Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks.

Tell that to the Kiwis.

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they are,
whether for transmission or reception.

It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many
electrons
accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?

The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.

Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.

RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!

It cannot be.

Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?

A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
source.

Assertion carries no weight.

Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?

Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.

Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?

I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away.



I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around corners?

Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.

Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the word.

A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside
one.

I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".

Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look inside a
photon....

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 28 May 2012 11:16:56 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

That's vague. What's a "wavelike property"?
The turning of the Earth possesses a wavelike property:
http://easytide.ukho.gov.uk/EasyTide...ide/index.aspx
A piston, crankshaft and connecting rod possesses a wavelike
property. The phase between two pistons in a 4-stroke
twin cylinder engine isn't zero, it is 360 degrees because they
fire alternately. Anything that rotates or reciprocates possesses a
wavelike property. Your domestic AC electricity supply possesses
a wavelike property.

All right, if you want to be pedantic, let's agree that 'aspects of
their
observed behavior exhibit regular periodicity'.

We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
directions.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...

Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
metres/sec in opposite directions.
1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
mathematics or waves.




ONE photon does not make a continuous wave.

Yes it does.
ONE wheel on your car doesn't make continuous contact
with the road. If it did it would possess a wavelike property,
the air valve would move up and down.

It would appear as a wave if plotted against time.

Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.

Partly true.
For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have what
you see if you photograph a water wave.
If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally at
the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as
you
see on the photograph.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.




However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics IS
physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a 'wavelength'..

I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because "long"
and "length" are used for both x and t

Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

It is a totaly different entity.

No it isn't.

Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

The photons in them don't have to be.

Radio waves are monochromatic.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.


A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency

Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).

The photon density varies at 100MHz.

You make it up as you go along.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.


although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
wavelength'.

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.

Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.

I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary inspector
on the end of it.


A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated
so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.

That's very clever..

Thank you.



A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.

A radio signal is not made of one photon.

Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred years.....BLOODY
LONG PHOTON.....

What does Daisy say?

Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is neither
photon nor wave.

A radio wave is a train of photons.





Not true.


Radio waves consist of a great many photons, each emitted by an
accelerating
charge in the antenna.

Rubbish. If photons were wheels then a radio wave would be a train,
each carriage spaced apart exactly and all wheels going at the
same speed. Light would be more like cars on a road, unequally
spaced and some passing others.

You don't understand that innumerable photons are being emitted
continuously
from all the accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna.

"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a ****wit
like Shuba. He's the kind of **** that always claims "You don't
understand..."

He IS a ****wit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us in
peace.

The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.



What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.

They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.

Making ONE big photon.




I think the waveform of a radio wave is created by
varying the photon energy density with time. Photons are very small
so
gigahertz frequencies are no problem.

Rubbish. Low frequency radio waves are huge.
Roller skate wheels are small, they spin faster than
tractor tyres.

Engineers should not get involved with physics.

Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks.

Tell that to the Kiwis.

It isn't tiny when it is emitted. A 500 MHz - 1 GHz photon is as big
as
a TV aerial, which, strangely, is why TV aerials are the size they
are,
whether for transmission or reception.

It isn't. Photons are emitted by accelerating charges. How many
electrons
accelerate per second along a UHF antenna?

The electrons work in concert to produce ONE magnetic field.

Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.

RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!

It cannot be.

But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
flock of sheep.

Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
physics or mathematics.





Then measure the speed of TV signals. That should be easy enough
for a D.Sc. physicist, all the electronics are available, you can
easily
find the location of the transmitter and your house with GPS. Or is
"close to it" good enough for government work?

A TV signal is made of a great many photons that move at c wrt their
source.

Assertion carries no weight.

Do you claim that they don't move at c wrt the antenna?

Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.

Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?

When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
and that bends the one big photon.

Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.



I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away.



I'd do it myself, but I'm only a pommie engineer who's not trying to
have a theory and my transmitter is only a mile away. I found the
maximum range of FM signals to be about 100 miles when I was
living in Pennsylvania, I lost the signal after 2 hours driving at
55 mph and had to tune in to the next city's radio station to get
some music.

Have you ever considered why FM and UHF signals wont go around
corners?

Ask Tisseladd. He can bend light.

Irrelevant, you need to explain what INSIDE means. You stressed the
word.

A photon has length and cross section. Lots of things can happen inside
one.

I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".

Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look inside
a
photon....

Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.

On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:33 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
directions.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...

Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
metres/sec in opposite directions.
1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....


Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.

Partly true.
For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have what
you see if you photograph a water wave.
If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally at
the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as
you
see on the photograph.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics IS
physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a 'wavelength'..

I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because "long"
and "length" are used for both x and t

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

It is a totaly different entity.

No it isn't.

Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

The photons in them don't have to be.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

Not so. They are monoradiomatic.

Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency

Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).

The photon density varies at 100MHz.

You make it up as you go along.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
wavelength'.

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.

Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.

I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary inspector
on the end of it.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated
so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.

That's very clever..

Thank you.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....


A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.

A radio signal is not made of one photon.

Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred years.....BLOODY
LONG PHOTON.....

What does Daisy say?

Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is neither
photon nor wave.

A radio wave is a train of photons.

"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a ****wit
like Shuba. He's the kind of **** that always claims "You don't
understand..."

He IS a ****wit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us in
peace.

The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.

....and Andersen has just unwittingly supported BaTh.

What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.

They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.

Making ONE big photon.

Aha! You are finally coming around to supporting my inification
theory.....good!



Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.

RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!

It cannot be.

But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
flock of sheep.

That is indeed a possibility.
However, we were actually discussing what happens at the broadcasting
antenna, where individual and very minute photons are emitted more or less
randomly along the whole length. How far do they need to travel before they
coalesce into what is effectively one big photon?



Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
physics or mathematics.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....



Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.

Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?

When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
and that bends the one big photon.

Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.

Don't lie. You sound like Tusseladd. I have never said that.



I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".

Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look inside
a
photon....

Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.

You need a 'quick' telescope then.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:33 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other
water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
directions.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...

Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
metres/sec in opposite directions.
1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....






Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.

Partly true.
For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have
what
you see if you photograph a water wave.
If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally
at
the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as
you
see on the photograph.

http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....




However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics
IS
physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a
'wavelength'..

I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because "long"
and "length" are used for both x and t

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....


Light is not like a radio wave.

Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.

It is a totaly different entity.

No it isn't.

Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

The photons in them don't have to be.

Radio waves are monochromatic.

Not so. They are monoradiomatic.

You say red, I say cheap ozzie plonk.
Monochromatic means single coloured and colour depends
only on frequency. Radio waves are monochromatic.




Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency

Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).

The photon density varies at 100MHz.

You make it up as you go along.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....


although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
wavelength'.

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.

Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.

I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary inspector
on the end of it.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated
so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.

That's very clever..

Thank you.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.

A radio signal is not made of one photon.

Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred
years.....BLOODY
LONG PHOTON.....

What does Daisy say?

Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is neither
photon nor wave.

A radio wave is a train of photons.

"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a ****wit
like Shuba. He's the kind of **** that always claims "You don't
understand..."

He IS a ****wit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us
in
peace.

The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.

...and Andersen has just unwittingly supported BaTh.

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....


What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.

They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.

Making ONE big photon.

Aha! You are finally coming around to supporting my inification
theory.....good!

Your crackpot ini****ation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....



Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.

RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!

It cannot be.

But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
flock of sheep.

That is indeed a possibility.
However, we were actually discussing what happens at the broadcasting
antenna, where individual and very minute photons are emitted more or less
randomly along the whole length.

The receiver has the identical process in reverse, that's all. Forget the
electrons, it's the voltage that Faraday described and Maxwell copied,
long before Thompson nvented electrons.
E = -dB/dt, Voltage = rate of change of Magnetic Field.

How far do they need to travel before they
coalesce into what is effectively one big photon?

To the skin of the dipole.





Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
physics or mathematics.

You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

Your crackpot ini****ation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....



Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.

Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?

When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
and that bends the one big photon.

Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.

Don't lie. You sound like Tusseladd. I have never said that.

Then answer the ****ing question.
If you don't like that one, why do you say radio waves
move at c wrt to the aerial? Where is your evidence?
What I did was ask someone who claims a D. Sc. to check.
What I get is can be, might be, could be...




I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".

Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look
inside
a
photon....

Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.

You need a 'quick' telescope then.

Use an oscilloscope.

I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are
two different phenomena which are called "standing waves."

-- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

-- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings. In this case, but
not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to two waves with
the same amplitude moving in opposite directions. Wikipedia explains
how the trig identity makes this so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

-- Bill Owen

Androcles wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:33 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:
We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that "wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other
water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif
A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
directions.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...
Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
metres/sec in opposite directions.
1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....





Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.
Partly true.
For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have
what
you see if you photograph a water wave.
If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down sinusoidally
at
the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave as
you
see on the photograph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....




However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics
IS
physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a
'wavelength'..

I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because "long"
and "length" are used for both x and t
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

Light is not like a radio wave.
Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.
It is a totaly different entity.
No it isn't.

Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal oscillation.
Radio waves are monochromatic.
The photons in them don't have to be.
Radio waves are monochromatic.
Not so. They are monoradiomatic.

You say red, I say cheap ozzie plonk.
Monochromatic means single coloured and colour depends
only on frequency. Radio waves are monochromatic.



Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency
Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation" (FM).
The photon density varies at 100MHz.

You make it up as you go along.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....


although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
wavelength'.

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.

I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary inspector
on the end of it.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons, modulated
so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.
That's very clever..
Thank you.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....
A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of a
particular frequency..

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.
A radio signal is not made of one photon.

Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred
years.....BLOODY
LONG PHOTON.....

What does Daisy say?

Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is neither
photon nor wave.

A radio wave is a train of photons.
"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a ****wit
like Shuba. He's the kind of **** that always claims "You don't
understand..."
He IS a ****wit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us
in
peace.
The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.
...and Andersen has just unwittingly supported BaTh.

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....


What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.
They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.
Making ONE big photon.
Aha! You are finally coming around to supporting my inification
theory.....good!

Your crackpot ini****ation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the same
instant.
RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!
It cannot be.
But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
flock of sheep.
That is indeed a possibility.
However, we were actually discussing what happens at the broadcasting
antenna, where individual and very minute photons are emitted more or less
randomly along the whole length.

The receiver has the identical process in reverse, that's all. Forget the
electrons, it's the voltage that Faraday described and Maxwell copied,
long before Thompson nvented electrons.
E = -dB/dt, Voltage = rate of change of Magnetic Field.

How far do they need to travel before they
coalesce into what is effectively one big photon?

To the skin of the dipole.



Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
physics or mathematics.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

Your crackpot ini****ation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.
Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?
When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
and that bends the one big photon.

Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.
Don't lie. You sound like Tusseladd. I have never said that.

Then answer the ****ing question.
If you don't like that one, why do you say radio waves
move at c wrt to the aerial? Where is your evidence?
What I did was ask someone who claims a D. Sc. to check.
What I get is can be, might be, could be...


I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".
Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look
inside
a
photon....

Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.
You need a 'quick' telescope then.

Use an oscilloscope.

"Bill Owen" wrote in message
...
I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are two
different phenomena which are called "standing waves."

-- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

You would also see it by travelling through air at Mach 1, in which
case there is no frequency.
Same with the surf board, the rider travels at the crest of the wave
and has no vertical velocity; even though he has horizontal velocity
wrt the shore he has no horizontal velocity wrt the crest of the wave.
Again, no frequency.



-- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings.

Violin strings are tethered, they do not move through the air as the sound
waves they produce do; but you make my point. The violin string has
both wavelength and frequency, yet no velocity. The string is a standing
wave.


In this case, but not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to
two waves with the same amplitude moving in opposite directions.

Then I demand to know the velocity of these supposed opposing waves.


Wikipedia explains
==================
Wackypedia can kiss my arse, it is full of wacky ****. The summation
of waves is easily computed with nothing more than a spreadsheet,
as he
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...mWave20+21.gif
As you can clearly see (if viewing with the appropriate reader), the sum
travels much faster then either of the two waves being summed.



Androcles wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:55:33 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:06:11 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:
We have to be pedantic, and you are right, I fully agree that
"wavelike"
merely means regular periodicity. The difficulty arises only when
waves
travel -- i.e. the water moves up and down, out of phase with other
water
that is horizontally displaced but moving up and down. Then we get
into
arguments about wavelength, frequency and speed. A standing wave has
wavelength and frequency, but no speed. If it did it wouldn't be
called
"standing".
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif
A standing wave is the sum of two similar waves MOVING in opposite
directions.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in physics...
Yeah, a standing water wave is two water waves moving at 300,000,000
metres/sec in opposite directions.
1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2 and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in
mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....





Yes. So does the mass on a spring. The air valve plots a
cycloid against x and a sine wave against t. The cycloid
because the horizontal movement of the valve is not
constant. Where the tyre touches the ground it has no
movement in x. If it did you'd be leaving skid marks.
It is important to distinguish a plot against time and a
plot against distance, they are NOT the same.
Partly true.
For a traveling in a medium the equation for a traveling wave is A=
Ao.sin(2pi(t/T-x/L). which means that a particular instant, you have
what
you see if you photograph a water wave.
If you hold x constant, the water surface goes up and down
sinusoidally at
the point x....so if you plot it against time, you get the same wave
as
you
see on the photograph.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co...andingWave.gif

A standing water wave is two water waves moving at a gazillion
light years/sec in opposite directions. 1- 1 = 0 and 2-2 = 0 so 1 = 2
and sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....




However, you are one who continually opposes the idea that mathematics
IS
physics so you shouldn't claim that a spinning wheel has a
'wavelength'..

I didn't. The problem is English, the rope is all day long because
"long"
and "length" are used for both x and t
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

Light is not like a radio wave.
Yes it is. It's just a higher frequency, it spins faster.
It is a totaly different entity.
No it isn't.

Monchromatic light is made up of many
identical individual photons, each with the same internal
oscillation.
Radio waves are monochromatic.
The photons in them don't have to be.
Radio waves are monochromatic.
Not so. They are monoradiomatic.

You say red, I say cheap ozzie plonk.
Monochromatic means single coloured and colour depends
only on frequency. Radio waves are monochromatic.



Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

A beam of such photons does not possess an observable frequency
Yes it does. Tune in to 100 MHz FM. Any deviation from 100 MHz
is called "audio" which is why it is called "Frequency Modulation"
(FM).
The photon density varies at 100MHz.

You make it up as you go along.
Sheep shaggers shouldn't dabble in mathematics or waves.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....


although
each photon has spatial features that show up as an 'absolute
wavelength'.

There is no such animal as 'absolute wavelength'.
Engineers shouldn't dabble in BaTh.

I wouldn't touch your BaTh with a 10 foot pole with a sanitary
inspector
on the end of it.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

A radio wave is made of a broad spectrum individual photons,
modulated
so
that the photon density carries the wave information.

Rubbish. A radio wave is a train of photons.
That's very clever..
Thank you.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....
A radio receiver detects photon density (energy density) changes of
a
particular frequency..

No it doesn't, but I'm not going the explain FM and AM radio to
an idiot here. There is a whole internet where you can find it. Use
Google.
A radio signal is not made of one photon.

Gawd, the BBC has been broadcasting for over one hundred
years.....BLOODY
LONG PHOTON.....

What does Daisy say?

Daisy said "That's very clever.." then mumbled "signal" which is
neither
photon nor wave.

A radio wave is a train of photons.
"You don't understand..." You sound just like a relativist, a
****wit
like Shuba. He's the kind of **** that always claims "You don't
understand..."
He IS a ****wit. ...but the rest of the ratpack seems to have left us
in
peace.
The rats are leaving the sinking ship, they've seen the end of
relativity coming. Phuckwit Duck has gone, Dork Van de Belgian
Waffle is running out of steam, Bonehead is loitering in alt.astronomy.
...and Andersen has just unwittingly supported BaTh.

I'm not the clown that claimed "A standing wave is the sum of two
similar waves MOVING in opposite directions."
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....


What YOU don't understand is the magnetic field that all those
accelerating charges along the broadcasting antenna contribute to
is ONE photon until they all move back again and do it again
and again.
They are emitted in phase. Their fields combine.
Making ONE big photon.
Aha! You are finally coming around to supporting my inification
theory.....good!

Your crackpot ini****ation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

Only because they are all accelerating the same direction at the
same
instant.
RIGHT!
And when the magnetic field collapses remote from the aerial it
leaves ONE electric field, out there in space. The photon is as
big as the aerial!
It cannot be.
But it is. And when the big photon with the one magnetic field
hits the receiving aerial it creates one voltage that sends all the
tiny electrons scuttling just like the sheep dog drives the whole
flock of sheep.
That is indeed a possibility.
However, we were actually discussing what happens at the broadcasting
antenna, where individual and very minute photons are emitted more or
less
randomly along the whole length.

The receiver has the identical process in reverse, that's all. Forget the
electrons, it's the voltage that Faraday described and Maxwell copied,
long before Thompson nvented electrons.
E = -dB/dt, Voltage = rate of change of Magnetic Field.

How far do they need to travel before they
coalesce into what is effectively one big photon?

To the skin of the dipole.



Sheep shaggers should tend to their flocks and not dabble in
physics or mathematics.
You are raving mad....cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.....

Your crackpot ini****ation theory was dependent on velocity.
You are raving mad... gobble, gobble, gobble....

Defining c = 300,000,000 m/s, yes.
TV signals move at c. Measure them, you have all the electronics
available, a D.Sc. and a theory to prove.
Why do you say they move at less than c wrt their antenna?
When all the electrons run up the aerial they have to stop at the end.
This means they slow down more than electrons in the middle,
and that bends the one big photon.

Why do you say they move at c wrt empty space?
Oh wait, I know... Einstein said so and you believe him.
Don't lie. You sound like Tusseladd. I have never said that.

Then answer the ****ing question.
If you don't like that one, why do you say radio waves
move at c wrt to the aerial? Where is your evidence?
What I did was ask someone who claims a D. Sc. to check.
What I get is can be, might be, could be...


I'm not interested in "can", "maybe", "might be", "could be". If you
were a scientist you'd investigate and say "is".
Well get hold of a bloody microscope and tell Daisy to have a look
inside
a
photon....

Don't need a microscope for something as big as a TV aerial, Daisy.
You need a 'quick' telescope then.

Use an oscilloscope.

On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:21:42 -0700, Bill Owen wrote:

I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are
two different phenomena which are called "standing waves."

-- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

THat's merely a frame effect. It is only stationary in one observer frame.
It is not at all related to the scientific definition of a 'standing wave'.

-- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings. In this case, but
not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to two waves with
the same amplitude moving in opposite directions.

Correct.
For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)]

which means that at any point x, the string moves up and down sinusoidally
with amplitude also varying sinusoidally along its length.

Wikipedia explains
how the trig identity makes this so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

You are wasting your time trying to explain anything mathematical to
Androcles. He's only a pommie engineer, you know...

-- Bill Owen

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:21:42 -0700, Bill Owen wrote:

I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are
two different phenomena which are called "standing waves."

-- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

THat's merely a frame effect. It is only stationary in one observer frame.
It is not at all related to the scientific definition of a 'standing
wave'.

-- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings. In this case, but
not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to two waves with
the same amplitude moving in opposite directions.

Correct.
For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)]

which means that at any point x, the string moves up and down sinusoidally
with amplitude also varying sinusoidally along its length.

Wikipedia explains
how the trig identity makes this so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

You are wasting your time trying to explain anything mathematical to
Androcles. He's only a pommie engineer, you know...


For a violin string, at x= 0 or x=L the amplitude is zero, Wilson.
Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep shagger.

On Wed, 30 May 2012 05:48:23 +0100, "Androcles" wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:21:42 -0700, Bill Owen wrote:

I think you two are talking past each other. Unfortunately, there are
two different phenomena which are called "standing waves."

-- the speed of the wave matches the speed of the medium, in which case
the entire wave stands still. You see this with large rocks in a river.

THat's merely a frame effect. It is only stationary in one observer frame.
It is not at all related to the scientific definition of a 'standing
wave'.

-- only the nodes stand still, as in violin strings. In this case, but
not in the first case, the math is indeed equivalent to two waves with
the same amplitude moving in opposite directions.

Correct.
For a string,
A[sin(wt-x/L) + sin(wt+x/L)] = 2[sin(wt).cos(x/L)]

which means that at any point x, the string moves up and down sinusoidally
with amplitude also varying sinusoidally along its length.

Wikipedia explains
how the trig identity makes this so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

You are wasting your time trying to explain anything mathematical to
Androcles. He's only a pommie engineer, you know...


For a violin string, at x= 0 or x=L the amplitude is zero, Wilson.
Perhaps you can explain what A and 2 represent, ya stupid old sheep shagger.

Try wiki's equation: 2[cos(wt).sin(x/L)]...same thing but node at each end.