Printable View
I thought that was the problem, debate started in another thread and when one party couldn't get his way started again in this one. :((Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
What's the betting on when Stolar starts another new thread to continue this saga. :p
Peter.
started it, not me. :rolleyes: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Port is not a bad idea but I think a cold shower may help as well. :think:
some excellent ideas :q exactly what i woudl expect in this section of the forum !
Reading and understanding also does not seem to necessarily have close correlation :rolleyes:
Steve, if you want to prove me wrong, please explain how can the formula that describes the Snell's law be resolved if both the angle of refraction is dependant on the speed and at the same time the speed is dependant on the angle of refraction.
For extra difficulty, you explanation is not allowed to refer to your training, past or current experiences, number of thousands of musical instruments that you have worked on, your thoughts on my knowledge or character or introduce any additional factors or coefficients into the formula.
BTW what is wrong with wanting to have the last word.:B
If only Steve would go away and let me have the last word ...
but then some of you lot would come in just to spoil it for me :q
Cool, so of all the issues and topics, you want to run with snells law, Im not going to throw theorys out there but physically prove that what I say is correct.
However I am curious as the issues you had in the original topic was magnets / magnetic fields / electro magnetic fields / eddy currents and so forth, snells law is something I said on my last post on the way out and that was in reference to the fact that sound moves at different speeds within a material which via pm you disagreed,,that point where the different speeds occur can be measured with the formula in snells law.. So lets clarify what it is in snells law you want me to prove to you, regarding dodgy science
Very good, I havent exercised my brain muscles for a while, but I can feel a mental flexing happening
Now it may take a day to prove as I will need to do a test example and show pictures of defined results, and I have about 400 musical instrument in at the moment that Im repairing as well
Just a reminder that in strict scientific terms there is no such thing as "proving" anything. All one can ever hope to do do is disprove a specific statement - and that still does not constitute a general proof of the opposite.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Youve been online for a while, Im surprised you havent clarified what it is that I earlier referred to in snells law that is dodgy, rather you have posted an extract of a definition of snells law and then simply reversed the statement. Its not about proving you wrong, its about clarifing as you put it good science bad science and twaddle and the need as you point out at the start of this thread to call people on any said notions
Your comment "you have not missed one opportunity to point out that you are luthier," is definetly over-exaggerated, I am but a humble musical instrument repairer.
However my history is slightly different, lets identify there are qualifications and certifications, qualified for me means I have undertaken a course of study at a recognised institution like universitys etc, certification means Ive been endorsed by a governing body to carry out that qualification in a commercial aspect. Ive worked my whole life and have been fortunate enough to have some interesting jobs from education that I recieved through my life
# First Im a qualified and certified private investigator (means I investigate false and misleading information)
# Secomd Im a qualified and Certified Aircraft mechanical engineer
# Im also a Qualified and Certified inspector of Aircraft for Casa - civiil aviation safety authority of australia
# Im also a qualified and certified Jet engine mechanic
I carry other qualifications and certifications but they are not relevant to the topic at hand..
How ever you will note I only refer to myself as a musical instrument repairer, thats my hobby that became a business that Im passionate about and now carry out on a commercial scale...
Im also very passionate about wood, hence why I post on this forum, Ive built most of my furniture at home and I build guitars and other items
That's probably because you're starting from such a low base.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
(Sorry Silent, I can never resist a gratuitous shot, but you know I really love ya.)
Yes sadly my moral high ground is rarely above the ten year floodplain. That's why it pays to invest in a pair of waders. Also helps when you need to wade through some of the BS that is bandied about :D
I actually did. That was the first thing that i pulled you up on it. If you go back to the PMs that i sent you I quite specifically stated thatQuote:
Originally Posted by simso
a) contrary to your post, a speed of a wave through a material is not affected by an angle the wave is introduced into the material
b) snell's law specifies that a refraction angle will depend on a ratio of speeds between the two materials (more specificalle a ration of sines or two angles (of incidence and of refraction) is directly proportional to the ration of speeds of the said wave in the exiting material and entering material). It does not specify the speed in the entered material as a function of the entry angle.
you have stated:
I am asking you to demonstrate ( either theoretically, experimentally or empirically ) that speed of a wave (sound, light ...) though a homogeneous material can be varied by the angle of entry of that wave into that material.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
I also stated that the only way that the speed of a wave could depend on the an angle of travel is if the density of the material varies with the direction away from the point of entry. In that case the speed is not really a function of an angle but of the density of the material. The angle is just an incidental factor.
I hope that this is a clear enough statement.
You really try to manipulate it and confuse it dont you, I notice your now adding little waivers, like it cant be different unless .....
So simply put, the discussion on hand is that you believe a sound wave travels at only one speed *velocity* within a material. Is that correct. Anyone that believes otherwise is providing dodgy science as you put it and should be debunked accordingly,:boxing:
and if that doesnt work for you, we will start another thread again..:2tsup:
One good indicator that two people are letting their emotions take over a discussion is when spelling and grammar start to degenerate. It's the unfortunate downside of typing furiously with steam coming out your collar.
Tried the three cups , think I need a few more :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by
Now have some of Sturdee's port. :2tsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev Y.
Ive always been bad at english. No steaming happening at this end, Im just letting him dig a deeper hole as we go, Im actually finding it amusing in a way, Getting ready to SQUAT that fly