What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

a reply to: neutronflux

Your so demanding? Yet cannot answer what force in the context of Newton’s first law of motion causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to change direction.

So are you asking this because you dont know yourself? Why dont you tell me? I have no idea. Can you explain this to me?

originally posted by: AntonGonist
What is spacetime?


Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?

a reply to: AntonGonist

I have no idea.

I had noticed that, myself.

So rather than arguing pointlessly with people that you have professed to be way below your level of comprehension, because you're obviously one of the great minds of this century...

... why don't you offer more than an "Interesting. Thank you. "... to the two best replies to your thread? delbertlarson and blackcrowe.

You're also being extraordinarily rude... if you are like this in person, and not just the Epic Internet Warrior that you're presenting to the world... then life must be quite hard for you... you catch more flies with honey.

Troll.

So do you have anything to say to the unverified models that may offer a potential mathematical solution to the "aether" that have been presented to you in this thread... by experts?

Why don't you discuss it with them? I would be interested to read that conversation... they have had the grace to take time to post in your thread, and you haven't even responded to them!... Useless.

Do you even understand the math? (I don't)... but would love to read a conversation discussing things beyond my layman's understanding.

Come on Mr Genius comment on these alternate models, and discuss why they haven't been accepted yet...

You won't and can't, and will cherry pick this post, and offer a snide comment instead. Goodo!

What are your thoughts on the alternate models that have been posted?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

... why don't you offer more than an "Interesting. Thank you. "... to the two best replies to your thread? delbertlarson and blackcrowe.

Whahaha. What a load. So I acknowledged his contribution and thanked him and that wasnt good enough. What do you have to add to it? Blackcrowes post I was still trying to decipher. I thought I might enter the discussion in that thread.

Soo emotional.......

Come on Mr Genius comment on these alternate models, and discuss why they haven't been accepted yet...

Aw. So since you cant win in my specific thread I must now discuss other threads in my thread? What is this even supposed to accomplish for you? Are these models in direct opposition of anything I said.

Stop derailing my thread. So weak.

What is spacetime?


Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: ManFromEurope

It is a field.

What is?

What f@&€King kind of reply was that?! Unless you have answers directly to Maxwells equations I am thinking that you do not seek answers but want to proclaim/justify some un-scientific nonsense in an area of physics where it does not make sense.

Stop playing around, no more nonsense like “what is a field” while ignoring the answers. Eiter you come to the point or this thread can go to digital hell.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
What is spacetime?

are you qualified to understand Einstein’s equations about this? I will not continue until you can prove that you could even read them. Post an excerpt of his work on this.

Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?

yes it is. And yes, it can be a particle, too. And yes, while being massless, a photon can be touched by gravity - explained by spacetime modeling.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

I posted,

So what is the medium, mr. Simple?

Then, you responded,

It is a field.

So the medium that propagates EM radiation is a field. Ok.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
Can Arbitrageur come in and answer some questions. Done with the riff raff here.

What questions? Whether gravity is a force?

Just because a force is what physicists call "fictitious" doesn't mean it's not real enough to kill you. In the case of centrifugal force, physicists say it's a "fictitious" force because it doesn't meet their definition of a "real" force from an outside observer watching the centrifuge rotate. This is a cartoon but its observation about the fictitious centrifugal force is actually how it works in physics.

www.explainxkcd.com...:_Centrifugal_Force


But if you change reference frames, and are Bond strapped to the centrifuge, it's no longer a fictitious force because from Bond's perspective it meets the physicists definition of a "real" force.

So, the interesting thing is, that the exact same thing is happening in both situations, that is Bond is getting crushed to death by the centrifuge. The outside observer sees the "force" as "fictitious" and the inside observer (Bond) sees the force as real.

So is the force fictitious or real? The answer is it depends on your reference frame, but it's just a technicality of how physicists define force since the fictitious force kills you just as dead as the real force.

This explains the situation described by the cartoon a bit more:

Black Hat has strapped James Bond to a centrifuge and claims the centrifugal force will be lethal. Bond objects that there is no such thing, but just centripetal force. The notion of centrifugal force is a common one, as we experience it whenever we turn. Teachers will initially teach Newtonian mechanics in an inertial frame, and in inertial frames, the centrifugal force is zero. Instead, a body that moves in a circle does so because of a centripetal force (acting towards the centre of the rotation). This is a reasonable, and correct view, but is a subtle point that many students find hard to grasp, as it seems to contradict their personal experience of centrifugal forces. For the sake of exposition, teachers may claim that "There is no such thing as centrifugal force." This however is also a misconception, which is addressed in the explanation below:

Observers' point of view (Black Hat, us, etc.)
James Bond is moving in a circle, and is therefore accelerating. The force keeping him there is an inward force of contact against the centrifuge, a centripetal force. Via Newton's third law, since the centrifuge is pushing Bond inward, Bond is pushing the centrifuge outward. The centrifuge's material is strong enough not to break under this force, however.

James Bond's point of view
In James Bond's frame of reference, Bond is at rest. He is kept there by two forces: the above-mentioned inward force of contact against the centrifuge, and an outward centrifugal force. He feels both forces.

As mentioned in the explanation, as the centrifuge rotates faster, the forces needed to keep him in motion get larger, so the force he feels gets larger. This will eventually kill him. The conclusion will be the same regardless of which frame of reference is chosen.

So if you're killed just as dead whether the force is fictitious but apparent, or real, I'm not sure why it's so important which one it's classified as. It's the same event just seen from two different reference frames.

So it's in this same kind of thinking that gravity is thought to be a fictitious but apparent force, so the fictitious force will cause a brick thrown up to fall back down, and it will cause jumping off a tall building to kill you. Saying it's fictitious doesn't mean it won't kill you, it's kind of a technical thing which if you can figure out what the cartoon is saying about the two different reference frames you will understand the idea. However students often don't find this concept easy because they aren't used to thinking in different reference frames, so if you don't get why the centrifugal force is real to one observer but not to the other, you're not the only one, it's not the most intuitive concept.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

What is spacetime?

yes it is

Ok.

And yes, it can be a particle, too.

Nope, EM radiation is a disturbance of a field.

a reply to: AntonGonist

Photons are particles associated with EMF, same with electrons.

Brush up on your physics.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Just because a force is what physicists call "fictitious" doesn't mean it's not real enough to kill you.

Didnt claim such a thing. I simply said "gravity is not a force" which it isnt. Maybe you missed the whole.....boo boo that just happened.


Btw your thoughts are very dark. I could just fall and scrape my elbow in your scenario. Is it the rage?

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: neutronflux

Your so demanding? Yet cannot answer what force in the context of Newton’s first law of motion causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to change direction.

So are you asking this because you dont know yourself? Why dont you tell me? I have no idea. Can you explain this to me?

Because gravity can act as a force. Is that false.....

And gravity causes objects of mass to be attracted to each other. Is that false.

a reply to: neutronflux

Because gravity can act as a force. Is that false.....

Yes according to your model it is. The effect we see is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime. It APPEARS to us that there is a force. This fictitious force we call Gravity.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

So spacetime is a field and a medium. What is the difference with the Aether?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

These questions.

What is spacetime?


Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?

a reply to: AntonGonist

Then what causes a brick thrown straight up into the air to change direction and fall back to earth in accordance with Newton’s first law of motion.

a reply to: AntonGonist

Actually, you did claim such a thing.

You said "Gravity is not a force". Quite clearly... multiple times.

What Arbitrageur showed you is that depending on your frame of reference gravity IS a force.

So you were quite clearly wrong.

a reply to: neutronflux

Wow this guy is unbelievable.......you tell me, I am qouting your model. Whats the matter? Does your model not make sense?