MaximalIdeal Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: 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. If you can put your points into written form, it would be appreciated. That way, we can see the arguments all at once and no one would be accused of quoting out of context. My argument is only predicated on the fact that the voltage is doubled when you unblock one transmitter and that current is proportional to the voltage. 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. Quote No, I am not disputing any mathematics. Your idea definitely disputes maxwell's equations though, so.... Edited January 1, 2019 by MaximalIdeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftPhysics Posted January 1, 2019 Author Share Posted January 1, 2019 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaximalIdeal Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, DraftPhysics said: Your idea definitely disputes maxwell's equations though, so.... which equation and how so? The third and fourth of maxwell's equations. If you put one into the other, you output the wave equations, which are shown in (5.6) in this link http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses/p212/lectures/node23.html The wave equation has the property that it is linear (because it uses the differential operator and the differential operator is linear), which means its solutions can add together, and then it follows that when you superimpose a positive part of the wave with a negative part, they come out to zero (because that's how addition works). Quote 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 You've given no explanation why. I was arguing for conservation of energy as well, so why would you say such a thing? Do you dispute that P = IV? Edited January 1, 2019 by MaximalIdeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftPhysics Posted January 1, 2019 Author Share Posted January 1, 2019 (edited) 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? Edited January 1, 2019 by DraftPhysics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 On 31/12/2018 at 11:27 PM, DraftPhysics said: You keep implying that all energy at a frequency is in the form of a "sine wave". You said you were not disputing the math, but clearly you are. In the mathematical description of light waves, they are represented as sines. If you are saying that they are not sines, then you need to show, mathematically, what these "waves" are. And no, I don't say that "all" energy is in the form of sine waves. Just the light waves we are discussing. On 31/12/2018 at 11:27 PM, DraftPhysics said: As to how overlapping frequencies, that are out of phase, effectively dubble the frequency I illustrated that in the videos. The rules require you to show that here. On 31/12/2018 at 11:27 PM, DraftPhysics said: I am challenging the evidence for your model. Even if that were true, it is irrelevant. You need to show us your model and the evidence supporting it. On 31/12/2018 at 11:27 PM, DraftPhysics said: This webpage also has few details but a nice animation. https://phantom-technologies.com/wave-interference-jamming/ Apart from being nonsense, that explanation relies entirely on the constructive and destructive interference that you claim does not exist! There is no change in frequency. If I was looking for an animation to demonstrate why you are wrong, that would probably be it. On 01/01/2019 at 4:03 AM, DraftPhysics said: 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;-) One of those desires is consistent with the rules of the forum, and one isn't. Guess which. On 01/01/2019 at 4:03 AM, DraftPhysics said: arguing math without a blackboard doesn't make much sense to me You can treat this forum as a blackboard and show us the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 10 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: 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;-) ! Moderator Note The rules are not on your side, however, so there is no actual conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 1, 2019 Share Posted January 1, 2019 14 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: ...and I would prefer that you make videos... conflicting duality's suck;-) ! Moderator Note Let's make this official. No more videos for you. We don't like them here. They're VERY difficult to deal with in a discussion forum, as the quality of audio and visual varies too greatly for consistency, and quoting is tedious at best. So write out your work while you're here, and save your videos for other, less rigorous sites. There are plenty out there, and we don't want to be one of them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftPhysics Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 On 12/31/2018 at 5:27 PM, DraftPhysics said: 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. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 On 31/12/2018 at 10:27 PM, DraftPhysics said: 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. OK, Here's the proof that, if it has one frequency, it's a sinusoid wave (sine, cos or a combination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis Feel free to argue with it. Nobody will believe you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 4 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: 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? If the experiment is done properly, then we know what the result will be. No guessing required. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftPhysics Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, John Cuthber said: OK,. Here's the proof that, if it has one frequency 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. 12 minutes ago, Strange said: If the experiment is done properly, then we know what the result will be. No guessing required. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: How does "a photon" ever have more than one frequency? It doesn't. Why do you think it does? 12 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: But no FREEDOM to do it in video Technicolor. You are free to sing a song, do a mime or paint a picture. As long as you ALSO explain it here. Preferably using mathematics. You are spending more effort making excuses than providing the mathematics and evidence for your idea 12 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: Please do tell...Please ...please See the nice animation of constructive and destructive interference that you provided to debunk your own idea. 12 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: 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. I have gone through the thread and I don't see anywhere that you have explained in text or mathematics: 1. What the form of light waves is, if it is not a sine wave 2. Why light waves in this form do not interfere with one another (even though we can see them doing it). 3. Why the frequency should change when two different light sources interact. Feel free to either copy and paste the answers here or link to the post where you provided the answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftPhysics Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Strange said: It doesn't. Why do you think it does? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 Just now, DraftPhysics said: 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? He is talking about your radio signals, not 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". 2 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: Mathematics formalizes Effects not the causes we are discussing. Mathematics can describe both the effects or the causes. But feel free to explain in words 1. Why radio waves are not sines, and what form they are 2. How a higher frequency is created by the addition of two radio waves 4 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: First give me your mathematics proving jamming doesn't happen in the radar experiment. Nope. Your claim, your burden of proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftPhysics Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Strange said: He is talking about your radio signals, not photons. 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 19 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: You don't know that radio IS photons? It can be described that way. But it makes explaining interference MUCH more complicated. It is much better to stick to the model of classical waves. Or whatever your secret model is, that you refuse to explain. 19 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: 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. It is well established that waves interfere. This thread is for you to present your alternative model. 20 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: I illustrated it in the videos, and provided you a page link with a nice animation The nice animation shows no change in frequency. It only shows the constructive and destructive interference that you claim doesn't exist. It also uses sine waves that you claim are not relevant to radio waves. So I am not sure how that animation supports your case. 21 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: You claim interference. I claim jamming. I have to prove jamming, but you don't have to prove interference. FAIR Cop Not! It is perfectly fair. Anyone can read the standard explanation in any school textbook. And perform simple experiments to confirm it. (There is a nice one for measuring the speed of light using a chocolate bar and a microwave oven!) On the other hand, you claim to have an alternative explanation but refuse to say what it is. Reported for soapboxing. 34 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said: I illustrated it in the videos, and provided you a page link with a nice animation I'm beginning to wonder if you even understand what that animation shows. Do you know the difference between amplitude and frequency? The original source of the animation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference That might help clear up your confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraftPhysics Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 23 minutes ago, Strange said: It can be described that way. But it makes explaining interference MUCH more complicated. It is much better to stick to the model of classical waves. 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? -3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 2 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: I guess you believe in the retarded backward dimension also. I have no idea what that means. 2 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: 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. I thought the subject of the thread was your model. 2 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: The nice animation shows no change in frequency. You obviously didn't look at it I did. It is really good. 2 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: It CLEARLY shows a 2x increase in frequency. I can only assume you don't know what frequency means. To put it as simply as possible, time (and therefore frequency) is along the horizontal and amplitude (or signal strength) is the vertical axis. I have annotated a frame from the animation with the frequency of one of the input waves (green) and the resulting wave (red). You can see that the frequency is the same for both. The frame is near the point of maximum constructive interference so I have also highlighted the amplitudes so you can see that the amplitude of the resulting signal is twice the amplitude of the input. 2 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: The 2x increase in bumbs That is amplitude (signal strength, volume) not frequency. 2 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: If I had post my whole theory on this board I would have been banned and you know it. I can't imagine why. Unless it would have meant posting hundreds of hours of video with no explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaximalIdeal Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: Quote 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. 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? If you have a receiver in the middle between two opposing antennas, you just get a standing wave. Some parts will be active, other parts will be dead spots. What are you trying to get at with this? You can see this in the very animation you provided. Look at the red wave: https://phantom-technologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Waventerference.gif Quote Not a question of mathematics. Mathematics formalizes Effects not the causes we are discussing. I already explained why maxwell's equations and your idea would be in contradiction. Edited January 2, 2019 by MaximalIdeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 3 hours ago, DraftPhysics said: Better to be Wrong that Right...I guess you believe in the retarded backward dimension also. 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. Theirs no place like home, theirs no place like....Try wishing on some dark matter. 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. You obviously didn't look at it I made no claim it was perfect. The 2x increase in bumbs No, your hypocrisy is obviouse richard feynman says they should't do that. YOU claim confirmation you do not in fact show. Your evidence is weak. more irrelevant baby talk 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. nerd code for I wet um I am wondering if you are just some kind of pogostick that fell on a keyboard my confusion regarding why hypocrites like you are made moderators? ! Moderator Note We gave you a LOT of opportunities to explain yourself, but when asked rational questions and faced with reasoned refutations, you resort to the childish behavior displayed above. I warned you before that this may not be the site for you. We are a science discussion forum that has rules against posting video-only explanations, and it's clear you want to soapbox about your misconceptions without any rigor at all. We don't support that type of guesswork, and you should find a place that does. We aren't going to lower our standards, so please make everyone, including yourself, happy by either behaving according to the site's rules, or just leave and go preach your mistakes elsewhere. Thread closed, don't bother to bring this subject up again without some supportive evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts