[jeffreyH]

No, my argument is that you can't stick to the subject. I'm talking about photons, all of a sudden you're describing how spherical wave fronts act in an earthquake. I basically said photons can't travel in a straight line at c and in another straight line perpendicular to that at c, and you posted a bazillion science facts about everything under the sun to try to discredit the argument, but you never did. You've been trying to provoke me to anger for several months now, just in case anyone who is reading this doesn't know about you from physforum.com like I do. Your patronization and condescension is way out of line, especially since you only half know what you are talking about. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Is there one single web site out there that isn't polluted with half-wits? I really thought science forums would be different.

You just don't like being corrected by anybody. Which is why you instantly go into fight mode when challenged. That is not the way to learn. You say you have just started studying calculus. Well carry on reading because you have a LOT to learn.

[agyejy]

No, my argument is that you can't stick to the subject. I'm talking about photons, all of a sudden you're describing how spherical wave fronts act in an earthquake. I basically said photons can't travel in a straight line at c and in another straight line perpendicular to that at c, and you posted a bazillion science facts about everything under the sun to try to discredit the argument, but you never did. You've been trying to provoke me to anger for several months now, just in case anyone who is reading this doesn't know about you from physforum.com like I do. Your patronization and condescension is way out of line, especially since you only half know what you are talking about. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Is there one single web site out there that isn't polluted with half-wits? I really thought science forums would be different.

Ah so instead your argument is that the theory and mathematics specifically designed to describe the propagation of light (and any wave motion in general) doesn't actually describe the propagation of light. Honestly this argument isn't really any better than the other one.

[Craig W. Thomson]

. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Whoa! that is a rather rude and disrespectful thing to say about a moderator.   You are the one who is privileged to be here, you and your friend have done nothing but moan at each other ''flaming''.

Neither of you are an authority on science, STOP being so deluded.

Whoa, I never said I was an authority. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I've always made it clear from the first day I started posting in science forums that I am a layman. I'm not "privileged" to be here if a moderator is going to attempt to misinform me. alancalverd either doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to climate science, or he has a financial or corporate interest for posting his opinions. Wrong is wrong regardless of any title one holds. I'm interested in the truth, not authoritarian science figures.  No, I'm not a "certified" authority on climate change, but I have been studying it since 1988, I've read dozens of books about it, and I did take some science and math in college while pursuing another degree. I didn't exactly fail out of those courses, as I've pointed out numerous times. I know the basics. You and alancalverd are both privileged to be here because you both spout nonsense and disregard the scientific method and empirical evidence.

You're a big one to talk anyway. You came to physforum.com with pmb a few months back SPECIFICALLY to flame waitedavid137. Now, agyegy has followed your example, and he followed me here to troll me just like he was at physforum.com. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that before he showed up, I wasn't "moaning." He has specifically targeted me, and I'm not going to just roll over and let him have his say. He's the one pretending to be an authority, not me. I'm just calling him out. If you learned your science correctly and paid attention when people explained stuff to you instead of promulgating your peculiarly interesting scientific nonsense, you could see he's obfuscating the issues to win the argument, talking in circles and going off on tangents.

Physics makes sense to me until people like you, agyegy and alancalverd start explaining it. That's okay. I've learned a lot the last couple of years trying to fact check folks just like the three of you. You're actually doing me a favor.

[Craig W. Thomson]

For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.

False, just on the premise of Zeno's Paradox alone. I don't even need to go into the complex mathematics in great detail. Gravity is a field. Part of the math needed to understand how gravity works is that it falls off as a square of distance from the gravitational source. Nothing terribly complicated about that math. So, you are talking about a "summable series," which is finite. That's a pretty simple math concept as well. That's what I've learned. Fields are an example of a summable series, not an example of infinity.

What's that you said? "Ah so instead your argument is that the theory and mathematics specifically designed to describe the propagation of light (and any wave motion in general) doesn't actually describe the propagation of light. Honestly this argument isn't really any better than the other one."

Let me clarify: Magnetic, electric and gravitational fields diminish with distance, that is. I don't want you to go off on a tangent about color charge and quarks. Still talking about photons here.

[jeffreyH]

Thebox just ignore them. Their only aim seems to be to pollute your thread. Who knows, it may be the same person using two usernames and talking to themselves. Let them get on with it. It is getting very boring now.

[agyejy]

For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.

False, just on the premise of Zeno's Paradox alone. I don't even need to go into the complex mathematics in great detail. Gravity is a field. Part of the math needed to understand how gravity works is that it falls off as a square of distance from the gravitational source. Nothing terribly complicated about that math. So, you are talking about a "summable series," which is finite. That's a pretty simple math concept as well. That's what I've learned. Fields are an example of a summable series, not an example of infinity.

What's that you said? "Ah so instead your argument is that the theory and mathematics specifically designed to describe the propagation of light (and any wave motion in general) doesn't actually describe the propagation of light. Honestly this argument isn't really any better than the other one."

Let me clarify: Magnetic, electric and gravitational fields diminish with distance, that is. I don't want you to go off on a tangent about color charge and quarks. Still talking about photons here.

By mathematical definition a plane wave is a wave in which all planes perpendicular to the direction of travel have completely uniform electric and magnetic fields. It is why true plane waves aren't physically possible and only approximations to actual waves that exist under very strict circumstances. The way the strength of a field varies with distance from the source depends entirely on the shape of the source.

http://bolvan.ph.utexas.edu/~vadim/Classes/15s/ContinuousCharges.pdf <- Here is some information on how the electric fields of various charge distributions vary with distance from the distribution. You'll note a lot of variation and that sometimes the equation for the electric field strength contains no variable for distance which means it is constant everywhere. Now that requires an infinite source but again this is just an approximation and only approximates the real world under very strict conditions (i.e. when the distance between you and a charged metal plate is much less than the length and width of the plate). The point that I'm trying to get through to you here is that basically all of physics is about finding appropriate approximations that give the correct answers to problems that can't be solved analytically. In doing that one often uses no physical concepts such as infinite charge distributions. It doesn't make the math wrong nor does it make it completely inapplicable. You just have to remember what specific conditions allowed you to make the approximation and restrict yourself accordingly. For a human very very far from a source of spherical waves plane waves are a good approximation because the radius of the spherical surface is so large the waves look like a flat plane to a human scale observer and the electric and magnetic fields are constant everywhere on that plane. Thus the human observer is completely justified in making the plane wave approximation as he will get the same answers (within the margin of error for any measurement) for any problems specifically on his scale in his lab using the approximation as he would taking into account the actual spherical nature of the waves. If you don't understand how and why approximations are used and how to connect them to the physical reality then you really have no chance of understanding physics.

[guest39538]

By mathematical definition a plane wave is a wave in which all planes perpendicular to the direction of travel have completely uniform electric and magnetic fields. It is why true plane waves aren't physically possible and only approximations to actual waves that exist under very strict circumstances. The way the strength of a field varies with distance from the source depends entirely on the shape of the source.

You will see plane wave when you die on the heart monitor screen.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Thebox just ignore them. Their only aim seems to be to pollute your thread. Who knows, it may be the same person using two usernames and talking to themselves. Let them get on with it. It is getting very boring now.

At least I'm talking about science. You're making up hypotheses about me that aren't true.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=craig%20w%20thomson

That's me, and I don't appreciate people making false accusations about me. If you're bored and not getting your fill of science here, I suggest you go read a book.

[Craig W. Thomson]

If you don't understand how and why approximations are used and how to connect them to the physical reality then you really have no chance of understanding physics.

Again, I don't need you to tell me what I already know:

"A mathematical model is never a completely accurate representation of a physical situation-it is an idealization. A good model simplified reality enough to permit mathematical calculations but is accurate enough to provide valuable conclusions. It is important to realize the limitations of the model."

That's from the Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook on my desk, and it's a lot less wordy than your verion you just posted. If you want to be a teacher, go get a teaching certification and be a teacher, but quit forcing lessons on me that I DON'T NEED.

[agyejy]

Again, I don't need you to tell me what I already know:

"A mathematical model is never a completely accurate representation of a physical situation-it is an idealization. A good model simplified reality enough to permit mathematical calculations but is accurate enough to provide valuable conclusions. It is important to realize the limitations of the model."

That's from the Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook on my desk, and it's a lot less wordy than your verion you just posted. If you want to be a teacher, go get a teaching certification and be a teacher, but quit forcing lessons on me that I DON'T NEED.

Either you understand that quote and thus you knew that the post I previously responded to was absolutely wrong or you don't understand that quote and thus you didn't know that previous post of your was wrong. So your choices now are you understand and you purposefully said something you knew was wrong to avoid admitting that I was correct or you didn't (and perhaps still don't) understand. Honestly if you find it so offensive that someone would attempt to correct your misunderstandings and help you learn something through rational discourse and evidence then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Honestly if you find it so offensive that someone would attempt to correct your misunderstandings and help you learn something through rational discourse and evidence then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.

Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum, especially when you've already posted statements that contradict what I KNOW I've learned correctly, from actual professors.

I'm here because learning about physics is my hobby, not my career. I don't need you breathing down my neck while I'm putting together a stamp collection either, force feeding me your views on numismatism. That sort of behavior is offensive regardless of the circumstances.

[agyejy]

Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum, especially when you've already posted statements that contradict what I KNOW I've learned correctly, from actual professors.

I'm here because learning about physics is my hobby, not my career. I don't need you breathing down my neck while I'm putting together a stamp collection either, force feeding me your views on numismatism. That sort of behavior is offensive regardless of the circumstances.

It's kind of funny that you think that some sort of teaching certification is required to be a professor of physics or of any other science really. The only teaching training a professor of a science is generally required to have (at least in the US) is a brief stint as a teaching assistant at the beginning of their graduate work and that isn't so much a requirement as a way for the school to get very cheap labor instead of hiring actual teachers. Now occasionally you'll find a professor that has taken the time to learn some teaching methods but that is the exception not the rule. Sometimes schools that don't have a research program in a certain science but still want to grant undergraduate degrees in that science or schools with really large introductory class sizes will hire a lecturer who generally does have significant formal training in being a teacher but generally has a Masters in the science at best. They only ever teach intro level courses and are not ever given the title professor.

Basically the idea that you need some sort of certification to become a science professor (beyond a doctorate in the science you which to teach) is very wrong.

[jeffreyH]

Thebox just ignore them. Their only aim seems to be to pollute your thread. Who knows, it may be the same person using two usernames and talking to themselves. Let them get on with it. It is getting very boring now.

At least I'm talking about science. You're making up hypotheses about me that aren't true.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=craig%20w%20thomson

That's me, and I don't appreciate people making false accusations about me. If you're bored and not getting your fill of science here, I suggest you go read a book.

I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.

[guest39538]

I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.

The density of a black hole is mainly an electro-negativity,  an electro-positivity can not attract an electro-positivity.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.

A billion people go hungry every day. Get back to us when you have a real problem.

[jeffreyH]

And you sitting at your computer typing argumentative nonsense is helping how?

[Craig W. Thomson]

And you sitting at your computer typing argumentative nonsense is helping how?

It's not argumentative nonsense. Maybe you just don't understand photons and waves, like agyejy.

[puppypower]

Did they see gravity waves, or did they see the exothermic output, due to a loss of gravitational potential?

The reason I ask is, a theoretical exothermic output, from the loss of gravitational potential, should look like a pulse stye output. It should be analogous to an electron lowering potential, giving off a photon; pulse output.

On the other hand, if two black holes merge, but do not disappear, the gravity waves should get stronger and stronger and then remain strong to reflect the final merger. The signal should climb a ramp and the level off. It should not pulse. Energy output, on the other hans, would be expected to pulse.

I think the scientists proved that the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, which I predicted a few year ago. Below was my original line of thinking.

If gravity was a force like the rest of the forces, then the lower gravitational potential, should give off energy, similar to the way the lower of EM, strong and weak nuclear forces give off energy when they lower potential.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Did they see gravity waves, or did they see the exothermic output, due to a loss of gravitational potential?

The reason I ask is, a theoretical exothermic output, from the loss of gravitational potential, should look like a pulse stye output. It should be analogous to an electron lowering potential, giving off a photon; pulse output.

On the other hand, if two black holes merge, but do not disappear, the gravity waves should get stronger and stronger and then remain strong to reflect the final merger. The signal should climb a ramp and the level off. It should not pulse. Energy output, on the other hans, would be expected to pulse.

I think the scientists proved that the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, which I predicted a few year ago. Below was my original line of thinking.

If gravity was a force like the rest of the forces, then the lower gravitational potential, should give off energy, similar to the way the lower of EM, strong and weak nuclear forces give off energy when they lower potential.

I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes, but who really is, since they are unobservable? All anyone can do is make an educated guess.

I think what happens when two black holes merge is basically like a hand clap. When you clap your hands together, that compresses air. That compressed air moves outward, squashing up against the air in front of it, leaving a rarefied space behind where the air is a bit thinner. Then the squashed air molecules push up against the ones in front of them, and so on. That's how sound travels, as a wave of compression and rarefaction in the atmosphere's gases. When two black holes merge, to the best of my understanding, that causes a similar wave, a giant handclap of sorts, but spacetime itself is like the atmosphere that is "rarefied" and "compressed."

[Craig W. Thomson]

It's kind of funny that you think that some sort of teaching certification is required to be a professor of physics or of any other science really. The only teaching training a professor of a science is generally required to have (at least in the US) is a brief stint as a teaching assistant at the beginning of their graduate work and that isn't so much a requirement as a way for the school to get very cheap labor instead of hiring actual teachers. Now occasionally you'll find a professor that has taken the time to learn some teaching methods but that is the exception not the rule. Sometimes schools that don't have a research program in a certain science but still want to grant undergraduate degrees in that science or schools with really large introductory class sizes will hire a lecturer who generally does have significant formal training in being a teacher but generally has a Masters in the science at best. They only ever teach intro level courses and are not ever given the title professor.

Basically the idea that you need some sort of certification to become a science professor (beyond a doctorate in the science you which to teach) is very wrong.

Funny, because you have to get a teaching certificate to teach high school physics. At any rate, you would at least have to have the approval of the department heads to become a university professor. They aren't going to let some narcissistic crackpot of a public nuisance teach physics, and anyway, I wouldn't pay tuition for the same gratuitous nonsense you already posted free of charge.