Amazing Resonance Experiment!

Originally posted by new_here
Well sure whatever, but it is interesting nonetheless, how language just happens to use certain words and phrases related to this idea, to describe a given experience.

It may be interesting, but it's also a very sloppy way of thinking, and nothing to be proud of. It is not inconceivable that one would use words typically reserved for description of sex acts, to explain some physics phenomena. It will, however, be comic at best and in most cases just stupid. And so this "vibrations" and "resonances" which allegedly explain "everything" seem to people who actually know the subject of physics.

When something "resonates" with you, you feel good. (Is it vibrating at a certain frequency that is comfortable to you?) You get a good "vibe" from it, eh?

Actually, no. What you posted here is a prime example how vague words lead to perceived knowledge which is fake at the root. For instance, infrasound can cause a lot of discomfort and actual acoustic trauma to quite a few organs in human body specifically because of resonance. So yes, it "resonates" with you, verbatim of what you posted, and may actually kill you. You see now how you can produce a statement that's verifiably false, when you base your "argument" on some New Age crap.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Actually, no. What you posted here is a prime example how vague words lead to perceived knowledge which is fake at the root. For instance, infrasound can cause a lot of discomfort and actual acoustic trauma to quite a few organs in human body specifically because of resonance. So yes, it "resonates" with you, verbatim of what you posted, and may actually kill you. You see now how you can produce a statement that's verifiably false, when you base your "argument" on some New Age crap.

Not arguing, and I'm no New Ager. Just observing how mankind's language has developed words/phrases that sound like descriptors of what another person proposed: that vibration/resonance holds matter together (if it's in sync) or tears it apart (if it's at odds with it.) In your example above, infrasound would be the latter. I thought the word usage describing somebody "going to pieces" when something bad happens or "holding it together" under stress was downright interesting. I was making an observation, not starting a religion.

Originally posted by Eonnn
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Actually he's right. Everything is energy vibrating at different frequencies held together by a force. Scientists agree on this but do not know what the force is that binds it all together. Go watch some videos and do some research and you'll see. The video in the OP even has a quote from Tesla stating something along these lines.

I believe this. Personally, I think the 'force' is created by (or related to) spin/rotation/orbits creating a gravitational attraction, on the micro as well as the macro scale. I'm sure I'll get blasted for typing that, but I have this strange affinity to freedom of thought.

Click here for more information.

Just a reminder to the longstanding tradition that is ATS:

Stick to the subject and not the person.

Thank you.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Eonnn
Go watch some videos and do some research and you'll see. The video in the OP even has a quote from Tesla stating something along these lines.

I did - it was called a masters degree in physics. And any Youtube video that invokes Tesla as proof is, well, not dependable prima facie.

Tesla is not what you'd call a valid physics reference.

Consider a neutron, isolated in free space, at rest relative to the observer.

What's vibrating? Nothing. What shows you it's made of energy? Nothing. It'll sit there until it decays, half-life of about 15 seconds, IIRC, then you'll get a proton, an electron antineutrino, and an energetic electron, which will take off in that direction over there.

Now. If you catch all the bits and look at the masses, you'll discover that the kinetic energy given to the electron is as close as you can measure to the slight drop in mass of the entire system. Wow! Energy came from conversion of mass to energy!

That happens in some situations. It doesn't mean the mass is made of energy any more than a dollar is made of pennies. But like that mass, in some situations a dollar can be converted to change with a slight difference in value which will exactly equal the purchase you just made.

However, a dollar is not pennies. It doesn't have any inside it. If you cut it up, no pennies fall out. But it has a penny equivalence, and in some cases you'll see an exchange that involves a dollar going in and some change and a purchase coming out.

Similarly, mass has an energy equivalence. It doesn't mean that it IS energy, or that if you cut up a proton energy falls out of it. But in some cases you'll see an exchange that involves a particle going in and some other particles and energy coming out.

Originally posted by apcbm4

As with everything with Tesla, there are only rumors, but this seemed plausible because of the resonant frequency in glass that can cause it to shatter.

That's a good example - why does that work?

It's because glass is very elastic - when deformed, it will return to almost exactly its original shape. And it is a low-loss material in flex - that is, it has a high Q. What does that mean? Well, for some materials, when you bend them, the energy applied to bending it just dissipates as heat in the material and is gone.

For other materials, if you bend them, the energy applied to bending them is stored as stress in the material, and when the force that's bending it is released, then the material returns to its original shape with very little dissipation as heat.

That's a requirement in this situation. Sound doesn't have a lot of energy to it. So, in order to build up enough energy in that resonant system, you can't lose ANY of it as heat if you can avoid it. Otherwise, all the energy you're pumping in will just evaporate away and the resonance means bupkis.

So, glass is high-q, and even better, lead crystal glass is even MORE high-q and elastic than, say, a green glass Coke bottle or a shot glass.

Next, you have to have a system that actually IS resonant at the fundamental or a very low order harmonic of the excitation you're using. So for an operatic soprano, it turns out that the shape and size of a wine goblet is the length of a sound wave she's efficient at producing. If you had a wine goblet that was 2" tall and the same material, no luck. If you had one five feet tall, no luck. It has to be about that size. And you need a soprano and not a bass - and that's because bass notes are of lower energy and are mushier in space. A soprano can get more energy (and it's still not much) into a better defined wave than a bass.

So you have a system that's high-q, elastic, and non-dissipative, and you've got a mechanical energy source that can deliver a well defined wave at a fundamental resonance of that system. Even though the energy's low.

Finally, the material has to be brittle - that is, while it returns the energy of deformation efficiently, it will also fail catastrophically for even small total deformations. And lead crystal's your boy for that, too.

So in the case of an operatic soprano shattering a thin lead-crystal wine glass, you've stacked the deck for it happening in every possible way. She could not do that if it were larger or smaller, or if it were made of common glass, or if it were heavier and thicker.

Or else you'd see tenors breaking water balloons. Won't happen.

Originally posted by new_here
I believe this. Personally, I think the 'force' is created by (or related to) spin/rotation/orbits creating a gravitational attraction, on the micro as well as the macro scale. I'm sure I'll get blasted for typing that, but I have this strange affinity to freedom of thought.

Thought can be free but reality is not - f = gM1M2/r^2. No spin/rotation/orbit needed. Orbit is a function of gravity, not the other way.

But "attraction" in an emotional sense (I am attracted to Sue) is not the same as attraction in terms of physics "the two objects are attracted to each other because of electric charge". Otherwise I'd be physically dragged across the room and stick to Sue.

Thus, sloppy use of terms (or intentionally arrogating terms from physics to your religion ala Blavatsky) can lead to confusion.

In fact, to cycle back to comments made upthread, your concept has been contaminated by a false logos, introduced decades ago to deceive you.

reply to post by Observationalist


I agree, and if it were a cube where the particles could be suspended, what would it form then? Molecule structures? DNA? Why do we always think in 2D?

Originally posted by ArcAngel
reply to post by Observationalist

 

I agree, and if it were a cube where the particles could be suspended, what would it form then? Molecule structures? DNA? Why do we always think in 2D?

Well, no patterns would form. The only reason you see a Chladni pattern at all, is that along the lines of the pattern, the plate is flexing. At the flexure lines, the plate is not moving up and down. Thus, the material scattered on the plate collects there.

Besides which, molecular structures don't form because of sound OR flex, but due to chemical bonds of one sort or another, due to electrostatic forces.

And DNA isn't a random collection of particles, but a very defined structure that requires certain chemical compounds.

reply to post by Cuervo


Is there any study in regards to different outcomes if the material composition and characteristics (surface and particles) and sound (the environment and sound reflectors could also be used to make it even more complex). There is a similar phenomenon with electromagnetism but it is more basic, even so the particles characteristics (even as liquid and even at different viscosity) provides very cool shapes.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by new_here
I believe this. Personally, I think the 'force' is created by (or related to) spin/rotation/orbits creating a gravitational attraction, on the micro as well as the macro scale. I'm sure I'll get blasted for typing that, but I have this strange affinity to freedom of thought.

Thought can be free but reality is not - f = gM1M2/r^2. No spin/rotation/orbit needed. Orbit is a function of gravity, not the other way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one really knows for sure WHAT causes gravity. The accepted science on it is theoretical. I just have a different theory, and apparently I am not alone:
The Big Spin Model of Gravity
Quark Spin Causes Gravity and Inertia
Artificial Gravity

Again, we are both talking about theories. I'm ok that you believe one and I believe another. I request the same from you.

But "attraction" in an emotional sense (I am attracted to Sue) is not the same as attraction in terms of physics "the two objects are attracted to each other because of electric charge". Otherwise I'd be physically dragged across the room and stick to Sue.

I don't know where you got the idea I was ever talking about emotional attraction. So... I do agree with what you just said above.

Thus, sloppy use of terms (or intentionally arrogating terms from physics to your religion ala Blavatsky) can lead to confusion.

Hey, I don't even know who Blavatsky is... so I'm not a follower. My religious beliefs have not been revealed to you so... And I feel it's rather uncivil of you to deem my use of terms sloppy, considering you have offered nothing to prove my thoughts invalid.

In fact, to cycle back to comments made upthread, your concept has been contaminated by a false logos, introduced decades ago to deceive you.

Again... the concept came to me rather recently. You make huge assumptions about how that came to pass. Being that gravity is not fully understood, either one of us could be deceived.

Originally posted by new_here
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one really knows for sure WHAT causes gravity. The accepted science on it is theoretical. I just have a different theory, and apparently I am not alone:
The Big Spin Model of Gravity
Quark Spin Causes Gravity and Inertia
Artificial Gravity

Ok, you're wrong.

Seriously, all the way back to Newton getting beaned on the head with an apple, we know that two masses interact through this thing called "gravity". And all sorts of really neat things are based on it, like satellites and landing things on other planets. Things that wouldn't work at all if we didn't have some grasp on it. Grant you, you can get a lot of eggheads bandying back and forth on the nature of gravity in GR, quantum gravity and the like, but the gist of it down here at the macroscopic non-relativistic world is that f=gM1M2/r^2, that is what you need to know.

Of your cites, the first two are woo, and the only 'spin' part of the wiki entry seems to be talking about centripetal motion, which isn't really gravity but acceleration in a circular frame of reference. In other words, if you put water in a bucket and sling it around your head on a rope, the acceleration caused by the rope will keep the water in the bucket. But it's not how the Earth or Sun (or any other mass) does it. In fact, you don't need the spin part at all to get this effect, if you have a really great race car you could do it linearly by just dragging the bucket along as the car accelerated really briskly, but there's a limit to how long you can do that. It's easier to spin the thing so you can get a constant acceleration with the rope.

Better links for those who skipped out on this in general science in high school:

Physics Classroom
Suite 101



These links are more congruent to physics.

Again, we are both talking about theories. I'm ok that you believe one and I believe another. I request the same from you.

Sure. But hey, "theory" in physics is yet ANOTHER one of those words that don't translate well. In common parlance, "theory" means "something I thought up" and in physics, it means that this observation not only fits a huge amount of actually observed data, but also that it's able to predict things that happen, and doesn't contradict other theories that came before it, unless it can account for how that contradiction can be resolved. Newton's theory of gravity built things like ballistics, buildings, satellites, and spaceships. These things work. They worked because NTG is predictive, that is, it's so close to what actually happens that you can just use it to engineer things.

It is a subset of what is actually going on, and that's where you start getting into GR, but for the sorts of environments you're likely to find yourself in, NTG is just fine, and GR comes in as corrections you have to have for areas around spinning supermassive objects or things moving at relativistic velocity.

I don't know where you got the idea I was ever talking about emotional attraction. So... I do agree with what you just said above.

Just a response to "...it is interesting nonetheless, how language just happens to use certain words and phrases related to this idea, to describe a given experience."

reply to post by Bedlam

Grant you, you can get a lot of eggheads bandying back and forth on the nature of gravity in GR, quantum gravity and the like, but the gist of it down here at the macroscopic non-relativistic world is that f=gM1M2/r^2, that is what you need to know.

The 'eggheads' are bandying back and forth because there is no definitive proof that will end their argument. But I know how to end this one. Right on the heels of "that is what you need to know" I bid you good day whilst I journey towards what I (not you) decide that I need to know.