Jump to content

DraftPhysics

Members
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

DraftPhysics's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

-3

Reputation

  1. Better to be Wrong that Right...I guess you believe in the retarded backward dimension also. Or whatever your secret model is, that you refuse to explain. Me model is posted on my website and in the 1000 videos on my YouTube channel ...You really refuse to stay on the subject of the post. It is well established that waves interfere. Theirs no place like home, theirs no place like....Try wishing on some dark matter. This thread is for you to present your alternative model. ohh you have to kill anything that looks like a fair critique of your model...you mock others, but no one can mock you... more unfair cop mush. The nice animation shows no change in frequency. You obviously didn't look at it It only shows the constructive and destructive interference It CLEARLY shows a 2x increase in frequency. that you claim doesn't exist. I claim mediums allow interference. It also uses sine waves that you claim are not relevant to radio waves. I made no claim it was perfect. So I am not sure how that animation supports your case. The 2x increase in bumbs It is perfectly fair. No, your hypocrisy is obviouse Anyone can read the standard explanation in any school textbook. richard feynman says they should't do that. And perform simple experiments to confirm it. YOU claim confirmation you do not in fact show. Your evidence is weak. (There is a nice one for measuring the speed of light using a chocolate bar and a microwave oven!) more irrelevant baby talk On the other hand, you claim to have an alternative explanation but refuse to say what it is. If I had post my whole theory on this board I would have been banned and you know it. I am rationally going one step at a time and you keep to brake those rational steps. Reported for soapboxing. nerd code for I wet um I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand what that animation shows. I am wondering if you are just some kind of pogostick that fell on a keyboard Do you know the difference between amplitude and frequency? oh please explain the math difference between jamming and interference first The original source of the animation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference So what? as has been repeatedly pointed out the geometry for both is the same...distance and phase That might help clear up your confusion. my confusion regarding why hypocrites like you are made moderators?
  2. You don't know that radio IS photons? If you want to talk about photons, then I suppose you could say "Because it has one frequency it must be a sine wave". you didn't read the wiki page ether ...Right? Mathematics can describe both the effects or the causes. How about one example of a mathematically proven cause? Newton certainly would not agree with you. But feel free to explain in words 1. Why radio waves are not sines, and what form they are The subject of this post is the quality of your evidence for the causes you assert.. In this particular CASE ...the assertion that radio photons interfere with each other. 2. How a higher frequency is created by the addition of two radio waves. I illustrated it in the videos, and provided you a page link with a nice animation Nope. Your claim, your burden of proof. You claim interference. I claim jamming. I have to prove jamming, but you don't have to prove interference. FAIR Cop Not!
  3. You don't actually read any of the comments you response to , do you? he says " if it has one frequency" ...I say when does a photon have more than one frequency? You are free to sing a song, do a mime or paint a picture. As long as you ALSO explain it here. you don't read the post of other mods either, do you? Preferably using mathematics. Not a question of mathematics. Mathematics formalizes Effects not the causes we are discussing. You are spending more effort making excuses Another weakly evidenced claim ...and you are the one evading answering my questions. than providing the mathematics and evidence for your idea. First give me your mathematics proving jamming doesn't happen in the radar experiment.
  4. How does "a photon" ever have more than one frequency? it's a sinusoid wave (sine, cos or a combination) There is no "unweak" evidence of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis If this wiki link proves it Why wouldn't it say it does? Probably because that would be overtly foolish as they, unlike you, know the difference between carried "waves" and the force they are carried on. Feel free to argue with it. But no FREEDOM to do it in video Technicolor. Nobody will believe you. Except honest intelligent people. Please do tell...Please ...please You are the one refusing to provide a choice of content format. Why not provide the information here and, if you insist, a video as support. That is exactly what I did ....my comment Quotes "My comment" TO YOU. I posted the thought Experment in Text ...Then I posted the 5 min video providing more detail.
  5. This experiment will likely be done very soon ...Any of you brave video burners, afraid to give viewers content choices, care to RISK guessing what the results will be?
  6. your model violates conservation of energy You've given no explanation why. I was arguing for conservation of energy as well, so why would you say such a thing? edit retracted: You say 1/2 the locations are getting 2x the energy... then why is the audio 4x louder? So you are saying that even though no "slit" is causing a "wave function" all the energy of the radar is "moved" to the in-phase locations. Do you dispute that P = IV? No, and I am not disputing the 3or4x increase in audio signal ...I am arguing your claimed cause. I say when you have 2x more "radar" signal it produces a 2x increase in positive voltage (the antenna can not generate a negative voltage) in the receiving antenna... the carried "audio" signal than has its peek amplitude (its voltage to ground) increased 2x ...when that signal is converted back into a true sine-wave by the amplifier it will create another 2x increase in volume. You keep claiming I am arguing effects when I am arguing causes. Did you watch the 5 min thought experiment video?
  7. If you can put your points into written form, it would be appreciated. ...and I would prefer that you make videos... conflicting duality's suck;-) That way, we can see the arguments all at once and no one would be accused of quoting out of context. arguing math without a blackboard doesn't make much sense to me My argument is only predicated on the fact that the voltage is doubled when you unblock one transmitter the experiments do not measure voltage... and the audio is 4x In such a case, when you double the voltage, the power would be quadrupled by the P = IV formula (since current would also double), and then you're back to the conservation of energy argument about the dead spots. Yes, so your model violates conservation of energy Your idea definitely disputes maxwell's equations though, so.... which equation and how so? A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT:
  8. You keep implying that all energy at a frequency is in the form of a "sine wave". I am objecting to any obligation to agree that is true. As to how overlapping frequencies, that are out of phase, effectively dubble the frequency I illustrated that in the videos. why can't that higher frequency be detected? I assert it can be --unfortunately no one who has done the experiment has tried. You see, this is how science works: you produce a model I am challenging the evidence for your model. and then you test the expected results Effects are not causes. So, again, show us your math that describes how adding two signals produces a higher frequency. just as there is no huygens math, there is no jamming formula, just the simple phase geometry. And then show us this higher frequency being detected. You have to tune to a frequency to detect it...show me the experiment where anyone tried. OK, here is how jamming works: The wikipedia article has few details. This webpage also has few details but a nice animation. https://phantom-technologies.com/wave-interference-jamming/ In order to jam any cellphone / mobile phone, one must create a destructive interference pattern with that cell phone’s radio waves. RF jamming devices actually saturate space in a given radius, with a radio wave that exactly fits the mobile phone’s frequency. The only difference between the two waves, is that they are out of phase (reverse wave – see again above images). The product of this activity is a “white noise” RF wave, which destructively interfere with the mobile phone’s waves. Hence any mobile phone in the affected radius, will show a “no signal” announcement. Think of two radio antennas equal distance from a receiver exactly between them. Perhaps you can understand that the if the transmitters transmit the same frequency out of phase the receiver in the middle will not be able to resolve any signal. CLEARLY IN SUCH A CASE "wave interference" could not be blamed for the nul signal as the to "waves" would not interact till AFTER they passed the antenna.
  9. No, I am not disputing any mathematics. Math is just formalization of effects, and in most cases physics has that right. The problem with your attitude is you think proving effects is proving causes. You are saying that adding two sine waves does not produce interference The radar frequency is not necessarily a sine wave ...it may be pulsed. and that it changes the frequency. yes that is how radio jamming works Neither of these are supported by the mathematics. ... you need to tell us what math you are using. Jamming mathematics is the same mathematics as interference. We are arguing causes not effects. The wave eq is an angle and phase eq and both theorys of cause use the same geometry. Well, we could gather some data on this by comparing the number of peer-reviewed videos there are compared with peer-reviewed papers. Both ligo and the LHC have used video presentations to support there papers. You think the world would be a lesser place if all papers where submitted with the added value of video support and explanation?
  10. I wonder how many physicists would agree with that statement? There are lots of smart people doing podcast ...do you think they all should shut-up? Just show us the math. And the experimental data. I am not disputing any math, and there is "video" of the experimental data in my video. This is a science site. From the attitude you interject that seems another weakly evidenced claim.
  11. Sorry if you don't like that I have posted my response in video form. Some of the side subjects are quite complex and need some detailed explanation. I will attempt to post a bullet point summery of the points made in the video.
  12. I haven't seen any radar, microwave, or radio slit experiments measuring received "energy" with an oscilloscope. Do you have a link? "the power associated with the voltage is 4x" The transmitters produce Watts of photons ...are you suggesting that the receiving antenna can magnify that wattage? What are you talking about when you say it is a "manifestation of amplification"? In the experiment it can be observed that the audio volume decreases by 4x when one of the transmitters is blocked. It is my understanding that this is a consequence of dubbing the peek amplitude of the audio frequency "sign" wave.
  13. "You said the evidence for single-photon interference is weak" No I say the evidence for all/any EM interference is weak. "and you don’t get to move the goalposts" No I rationally choose to discuss the vary different experiments individually as they have vary likely different causes and effects. "It’s your claim. It’s wrong." You have not demonstrated that with any evidence reasoning or logic. "Go do your homework" When you did homework were you instructed that jamming is the same as interference? The 4x increase is in audio volume, and it is a manifestation of amplification. There is no increase in the carrier signals energy beyond that provided by having two sources.
  14. How about a link? single photon radar or radio ;-P I don't think so.
  15. This case #1 example is on the subject of using radio photons to illustrate "wave interference" ...this experiment has not been done with single photons.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.