# Capiert

Senior Members

552

2. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

Diameter has a unit of meters, area has a unit of meters ^ 2. Volume has a unit of meters ^ 3. What is the unit of intensity? Maybe, we could give it (=Intensity) the units for the (average_)momentum squared per area, or per volume so it would be some kind of density, as kilograms_squared meters_squared per second_squared per meters_(squared or else )cubed.? Power's unit is Joule per second. Energy's unit is Joule or kilogram meters_squared per second_squared.
3. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

I "guess", statistically, wrt to an average. E.g. The forest; NOT the tree(s). Noise? None a single particle has the shape.. I guess what confuses me there is 2 answers (in 1 sentence). Are you saying: a photon does NOT have a shape. (But) Only a (single) particle has a shape. ? E.g. (It has) None (=NO shape), a single particle has (a) shape ((but) NOT a photon). That'( i)s a good explaination. Good.
4. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

Thank you. It meant you(r scientists) were WRONG! Why should things be different now? Mistakes will happen. Nobody is perfect. When experiment and theory disagree, & you modify it (=the theory) then please DON'T expect me to believe it. (You'( ha)ve lost credibility.) You are still learning. (Meaning you DON'T know everything yet (& NEVER will, because NOBODY can know everything, right?)). NOBODY expects my claims to know everything or anything. But everybody expects yours are correct (now) even when they get thrown out 20 years later (in the future). I'm just trying to figure things out; & buffer myself (preventatively) (against) when you change your minds(' opinions). E.g. (Your) Old idea out, new idea in (takes over). I mean that it's impossible to define your speed with respect to a vacuum. Yes perhaps in the infinitive sense. But I still can NOT see a connection. Speed needs to be with respect to a(n other) speed. That means, you need an(other) object, body, mass (momentum). A vacuum is NOTHING=NO mass, object, NOR body. You bet! If the vacuum is filled with quantum foam (a big "if", as I don't understand what that means) You are NOT the ONLY 1 A rose (re)named anything else, smells just a sweet.
5. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

That is a mighty tall (=big, =demanding) sentence(=statement). That means an infinite number of points! E.g. Although you (generally) specify specific (limited) numbers of flux lines (per area or per volume). OK. I find that interesting. From NOTHING e.g. a field's virtual (math) point; the mass "grows" around that point to e.g. an atom (or molecule); & thus due to electrostatic (& magnetic) repulsion, excludes further mass in that mass's volume. The atoms are born (in conception); & a (math) continuum is established. Bravo! From virtual((it)ly =NOTHING), to real (matter). When I see that "dimensionless" I think of, NO x,y,z lengths (e.g. differences). Bizzare! I think I will need an example there, why that (photon) wavelength will become infinite (with an "exact" energy value). Yes. Einstein, Schroedinger, & Feynmann NEVER liked QM. Simply because nature does NOT make exceptions but people do. & your (photons') "lambda" wavelengths are (ruffly=approx.) "squared" values. Disclaimer: I'( a)m only answering your question. We live in an electromechanical universe. It (=matter) functions elastically with charge (repulsion). Charge always has mass (e.g. e/m ratio); but the opposite is NOT true. It seems we can have mass without charge. But that is probably NOT true e.g. tiny amount (negative) in the neutron. Moving Charge deals with electromagnetism. Quantum calculations have failed in the past for the proton's gyromagnetic ratio although scientist's thought their predictions were (absolutely) dead sure. They were NOT correct. Measurements gave different results.
6. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

Then you need some work to do don't you. I guess so, because my question "What is a field?" was NOT answered. Nope not saying that at all. Most anti-science trolls Do you also believe in trolls? I DON'T. Ever consider (then) that I am NOT a Troll? Scientists (as well as any person) do make false assumptions. To error is human. Yes, that is because you have not spent any time to learn anything. Photons can have a wave length of a kilometer, so you must think those photons are 1 km in size? Maybe this will help the wavelength has nothing to do with the 'size' of a photon. On the contrary. I'm fascinated. I NEVER thought of a 1 km concept before. Nature is systematic (=NO exceptions). Well if you can't understand it then we must immediately change all of our theories! Joker! I think I already said that a photon doesn't look like anything. It makes no sense to think a photon looks like something. Sorry, but I will NEVER understand that. I'm too old fashioned. Physical means for me some sort of form when dealing with particles. (Yes) Optically we can NOT see a (single) photon's shape; but I would like to (at least) conceive of 1. -400 years ago, atoms were NOT imagined. Now we have 3D models of them & their nuclei. Because that is nonsense. 100's of years ago, light's_speed was instant; til someone began trying to measure it. Was that "instant" an amount of time; or NO time? (Descartes). What is a water wave without the water? That'( i)s a good question (analogy). An electromagnetic wave is NOTHING without electromagnetism! Thus electromagnetism must be its medium. That includes the electromagnetism's functionality. E.g. The way it behaves. I can NOT see air & I (can) barely sense it (as though it does NOT exist although it does (exist); but it (=air) propagates sound waves.
7. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

Not so much. Fundamental particles are point-like. That sounds like you are taking center of mass into account. E.g. Going virtual, math conversion. QM? Mechanics is the study of mass's motion. (y/n)? It'( i)s doubtful anyone would understand that (those interactions). I'( a)m (truly) amazed chemist can make 3D views of (the) atoms. That'( statement) i)s what makes me wonder. How do you know? The rest is ok.
8. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

So really your data is about interactions; & NOT particles. But you have the nerve to say "particles", instead; so that people might understand (at least the substitute (name)).(?) That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed). It does leave me doubting a bit. E.g. You assume hitting the atom(s) dead on 0° at their center when measuring their reflected angle? & with thermal motion. How do you know? That is surely bound to fail! It's NO wonder your data does NOT (always) corelate with real sizes. It's a MESS! What is Lepton number? Good! I guess you mean, we can NOT measure a photon's dimensions (yet). We ONLY have theory, e.g. assumptions.
9. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

How do you KNOW if they (EM_waves) are NOT a disturbance in a medium? Science can only measure, but its technical ability is limited; & often needs to be invented (in the future). E.g. More accurate measurements. Nature does NOT make exceptions; but people do. What'( i)s that? What is a field? I ONLY use that word intuitively (NON_specifically, generally) the way I am accustomed (traditionally). E.g. For an acre (where the crops grow, also has the Earth's magnetic field in &/or around it; or a playing_field where the magnetism dances around. E.g. A spray (~fog) of magnetism (produced, perhaps from (high_)speed collision (or) distortion against (our) stationary matter (wrt the Earth). In other words, NOT the whole picture, i.e. ONLY part of the picture, e.g. the changes (=differences) that happen (when colliding with (or against) disturbances). Some abstract thing, usually area; (but) it could be volume; or a topic=theme field of knowledge. None a single particle has the shape.. I DON'T understand that sentence. Could you please restate it, differently?
10. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

I suspect I need a comparison of a field & a medium. Yes! (So) We (now) have something that looks like NOTHING. But I suspect you are implying that photons are (particles) too small to see. We would need a particle much smaller than a photon; & the vision apparatus for that smaller particle. Basically, (then) I'm asking for (what is) the "shape" of a photon because (you claim) it is (suppose to be) a (real=physical) particle. Otherwise "your" physics is (still) NOT making sense to me. Well if the photon (particle) is NOT round; then what is its shape. I'm NOT satisfied with pseudoscience. Real particles have real dimensions. They are NOT just imagination dreamt up by pseudo scientists. Science is measurement; NOT (always) its theory (ideas). I.e. Opinions from scientists. I have a big gulf (gorge) between talking about a wave_"length" e.g. 21 cm versus something as small as an optical photon. I have difficulty conceiving a real particle with the (conflicting) info (clues, hints given). It does NOT make sense. Thus I am requesting a (more) reasonable example. If that is because it is NOT round then please describe this real particle's shape. I.e. Photon. Naturally I have NOT co_related the photon's intensity to its size. But why NOT?
11. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

That looks (a bit) like you are avoiding my question Sensei. We KNOW we are dealing with a wave, thus it has a (pretty obvious) wave_"length". But I did NOT ask that. I asked what was the wave "on".
12. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

Hi Sensei This (thread's) question is a real question expecting real answers. I'm trying to figure it out. "Your" questions DON'T answer "my" question. But they can help. You say they hit but Bohr showed us from the very 1st in his younger year that contact is a virtual thing. The atoms do NOT touch each other. They (atoms) interact elastically at a distance with fields. OK. That's a good place to start. If you have a (single) photon with a wavelength of 21 cm, what does it look like? Is it round like a ball? How big is it really? E.g. what is its diameter? How do I co_relate its intensity to its (physical) size? How much momentum does it have? Yes, water waves travel, they are travelling on or in a medium (called water); & the (traveling=propagation) speed of that medium is typically (the symbol) c (in the formula), which in that case (=example) is 2 m/s. Although sound waves travel 1500 m/s in water (compared to 340 m/s in air). So depending on what kind of wave, then c has different values. I'm sorry, but water waves (do) travel at c, & "that" value for c is 2 m/s. Yes, I think so. What is a field?
13. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

Hi John That's a good example! What do you mean there, John? I DON'T think a vacuum can tell us anything. We would need a(nother) speed (as) reference which could be either in or out of the vacuum (to compare speeds). DON'T you think?
14. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

Thank you, both of you. Why do water_waves need a medium? (elastic, mechanically like a flexible_spring). Why do you exclude with electromagentism? Didn't Maxwell (also) calculate the (mechanical) Young's Modulus (~Flexibility) for electromagnetism (too)? Why only might? Can you please explain that to me? A wave of(=on) what? Good. I thought a slower frequency might be a bit helpful (simpler) to comprehend & understand. At least for me. I assume by mechanical you mean a sort of elasticity.(?) If an ion fluid is vibrated then electromagnetic disturbances (such as waves) are also produced! Or at least expected (by me). E.g. Sea_water. (But that effect does NOT have to be with salt.) E.g. (The) Water (molecule) is polar & has a dipole moment. E.g. The photo_acoustic effect producing soundwaves (ultrasound) from light's interaction. I suspect a similar process in reverse is also possible. Perhaps in a crystal.
15. ## How do scientists explain RF waves traveling, without a medium?

As far as I know water_waves travel e.g. at c. How do you deal with low frequency RF? Radio_particles? (Radions?)
16. ## Gravitational waves (split from 12 h Tides (inertia))

You Physicists claim gravitational waves (exist), 1. so what kind of wavelength (& range) do you expect? 2. & what (kind of) medium (properties) are you talking about?

18. ## The (Earth's) magnetic North_Pole attracts a magnet's south_pole

That (also) means a compass will always point to a north_pole, even a magnet's (north_pole, whichever is stronger). If I bring my compass near a magnet, then its needle('s blue_part, arrow_tip) will point at the magnet's north_pole (instead). So that magnet's north_pole is the same ((kind of) magnetism pole) as the (Earth's, Canadian) "North"_Pole. =It'( i)s NOT a south_pole (magnetism). (=Only the compass_needle tip is a south_pole (there), & the magnet's opposite end, (is) also (a south_pole). The same (kind of) south_pole (magnetism) found in antarctica (where the Penguins live).) ((The compass_needle's tail=(opposite_)end is (also) a north_pole (magnetism).))

Thank you!
20. ## The (Earth's) magnetic North_Pole attracts a magnet's south_pole

I'm also happy for your happiness. Merry Christmas.
21. ## The (Earth's) magnetic North_Pole attracts a magnet's south_pole

because opposite poles attract. That (interpretation) has been the (obvious) definition for centuries, i.e. based on the Earth('s poles' names), standard. So my compass_needle's blue_part which points North, must be a south_pole magnet.
22. ## 12 h Tides (inertia)

Orientation: (Oversimplified) It’( i)s (perhaps) easiest to say (ruffly=approximately), although the Earth rotates Eastwards, (but) it (=the Earth) travels: ((in a) net) west(ward direction) around the sun, e.g. (at) noon (slightly_)slower (e.g. slowest) & (at) midnight (slightly_)faster (e.g. fastest); & (=but) ruffly at the (same) net_speed at (both) 06:00 (sunrise_equinox, south) & 18:00 (sundown_equinox, north). Earth’s matter (mass) moves at many different speeds (& directions) wrt to its center. It'( i)s very dynamic. =Disclaimer: NOT all of Earth's matter moves at the same speed, NOR in the same direction. Newton made the best 3 motion laws=observations; but he did NOT always use them. (..when he should (have ((also) used them, too))). Complaint: The (Earth’s rotational) water’s inertia is missing in (most) Physics explanations! You can NOT stop the (automatic) laws of inertia from happening; they are expected. Something (inertial) must be happening to the oceans(‘s waters) because of the Earth’s rotation(al) inertia (=average_momentum) direction_(angle)_change. The direction of motion changes into the opposite direction, (=180°) (ruffly) every ~12 hours, e.g. ½ a sidereal day (is) 11 h 28 m 2 s; which works out to slowing & speeding (up) of the (net west) speed, around the sun. E.g. Parts of the Earth are moving faster around the sun, while other( part)s are moving slower. E.g. It (rotational inertia) is happening (to water), (& so) it exists (as the tides); but (it is ridiculous, that) NOBODY mentions it as though it does NOT exist. Is it possible that instead, they (people) (ignore Newton’s laws, & their (laws) affects & implications; & (those people)) prefer to 1st discuss their hocus pocus (NONSENSE, about the) “pull of the moon” (& (imaginary)) “action at a distance” hypothesis (for what reason I do NOT really know)? The Earth’s rotational_inertia also affects the (Earth’s) tectonic plates. The(ir) friction which causes heat & thus volcanic activity (melted stone, lava) & Earthquakes (irregular movement, caused by its (=stone's, =mother Earth's) irregular braking (deceleration)).

wrt Motion is always relative to some reference. In that (acceleration motion) case (which is the (experimental) observable) it sure looks to me like wrt the Earth's surface. The rest (=explanation) is theory. As the formula says. Why NOT? They are variables that can be mannipulated for other examples. Their values are specific e.g. to Earth; but (as) the variables they do NOT need to be specific to (ONLY) the Earth. Nature does NOT prefer for her (natural) laws. Her laws are universal. Thus other (different) examples (must) exist. I'm NOT telling you anything new. You know that already. Other celestial bodies have their own values for the parameters. The same variables can be used more or less universally. You just have NOT seen the connection yet. Or am I wrong? You will naturally say yes if I am NOT mistaken. If you are on the Earth, then you are (also) moving with it ((as) circular motion), without a (visible) change in height. An orbit can be equated (at least by me) to circular motion (which is) without height change. At least I can attempt to (try &) do that (if you can NOT). If there is NO_fall vertically then I see NO acceleration (vertically, either). But a GSO has NO vertical_fall. It (vertical_"fall") is NOT observable. I think you are confusing that objects are "free" (NOT bound) to fall if they could; but they do NOT fall ("down", vertically) (perhaps because they are moving?). Each orbit radius (value) r=(vc^2)/ac has its own circumferential_speed vc=cir/T=2*Pi*r/T; but that centrifugal_acceleration ac=(vc^2)/r is only a math_construct, anyway. It stems from squaring the circumferential_speed vc^2=ac*r & then splitting that into an acceleration ac & (r radius_)distance product. It'( i)s otherwise total NONSENSE to express an orbit in "area" (units) per time_squared; when (circumferential_)speed vc=cir/T will do (already). The ac*r product was only created for convenience. Weightless per word definition is "less" weight; NOT NO weight. But here I use it as otherwise intended, meaning: Weightless (as like floating) indicates zero (vertical_)acceleration. E.g. Einstein's Equivalence. I DON'T care what you "believe" (to explain), I am interested in the (experimental) observables (in order to formulate). If the weight Wt=m*g but the mass m is NOT falling (e.g. NOT changing its vertical_position) then its weight is (also) zero. Its (=The mass's) g=0 wrt the Earth's surface. It (=The mass) does NOT change vertical_height h=constant. Its (=The mass's) vertical motion is zero wrt the Earth's surface. That means (both): NO speed, & NO acceleration wrt the Earth's surface. (I can NOT understand why you think so rigidly. I suspect you forget that you are using only (math_)constructs.) What do you mean by local (there)? Up in the sky at the mass? (y?); or down on the Earth's surface (n?). The reference is the Earth's surface; but it'( i)s observing the mass (from there=Earth's_surface). Why NOT? Orbit is ZERO vertical_acceleration (observed). You can still have (1D) "linear" acceleration (or deceleration, completely) without (circular) orbits. (Thus) That is NOT an exclusive decisive example to rely on. It (=Your(=That (particular)) argument) does NOT decide ANYTHING. (It'( i)s NOT a double blind proof.) I would need a (much) better example than that to convince me otherwise. Sorry.