twitch: I thought you had a better sense of Homour than that. that was not an ad honim attack, argument, afunny aside. These were great teachers, students braving reprisals for teaching forbidden material.
Uh huh, right. Are you inferring that you're a brave student teaching forbidden material? That you knew someone who appeared to do so? Or that you enjoyed irritating people who tried to teach you things?
I completely understand the frustration of anyone trying to teach you something.
please, -: google standing waves, rapids, mountains. often a succession of waves. impressive.
No need. I understand the interaction of air and water currents in special localized situations where gliders and surfers take advantage of opposing currents that create temporary standing waves.
a set of waves in a moving medium, stationary or standing with respect to the source. medium, water, air in case of the tides the medium is the planets surface.
This is not the same as your previous example of air/water currents vis a vis opposing waves . This is the fundamental concept you are missing.
of course there are other type of standing waves, accoustic for example that are from refraction and interference mechanism.
I have experienced standing waves in audio reinforcement and how nodes and antinodes are dependant on wavelength/frequency, the location of transducers and specifics of the enviroment. I am aware of the effect of resonance in instruments and audio systems, both in theory and practise.
This is classic standing wave phenonmena but has nothing to do with tides.
The tidal bulges are from disturbence in a moving medium.
No, the bulges are due to gravity and are not waves in themselves. Gravity is a constant force and not wave like in it's effect on water or anything else. There is no rarefaction or compression in gravity as in air or water, nor frequency/wavelength.
That the earth rotates through these bulges does not constitute a wave that propagates or is the result of wave propagation. That waves exist in water is not because of the moon or gravity. Your terms are mixed up.
strange when at the end of a presentations it always ends in put downs rather than real refutations.
a recurring pattern like a wave, not out-STANDING.
Evidence was presented that refuted your claim and arguments presented that are sound. You haven't provided any evidence of your assertion and continue to press your opinion.
That you cannot accept refutation of your argument is not a put down but a fact you cannot seem to accept and the only reoccuring pattern here.
twitch, the theme was about CONNECTIONS, and I did not see you make the connection between the standing waves in air and water to the standing wave bulges on the planets surface, because the land has tides too, standing under the moon.
This is due to the fact there is no connection between wave interference or opposing currents and gravity's effect on water and the earth's rotation.
not all standing waves are equal.
Whatever.
proven scientific method, observe, make description of model, make prediction to falsify.
falsefy please.
please provide evidence of something to falsify.
In post 2944 I referred to gravity as an acceleration, without referring to the originator of the concept A. Einstein, for surely the distractors (esses) wouls jump on that as appeal to higher authority, like the source of my education. the lower authority.
Uh, completely false. Have you ever have of Issac Newton and the Law of Universal Gravitation?
You are a buffoon
I just will not respond to opinions that simply repeat , begin or end with the phrase " You do not know what you are talking about" for
the subject is connections, waves, energy, gravity in entities. and
as we can visualize them in analogues systems.
I tire of this utter bullshit and have nothing further to add. I feel sorry for anyone foolish enough to buy into your misrepresentations and wilful ignorance.
