|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump
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? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump
"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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump
"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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
The extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein (DOC) | ScienceDump
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!!! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE REFUTES ALBERT EINSTEIN | Tonico | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 1st 12 01:21 PM |
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 25th 11 01:00 AM |
Hoagland: Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence | Caesar Garcia | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | March 17th 04 01:31 AM |