>Well, perhaps... but that's not what the word elongation means. And that's >the word >used for the lengthwise motion by physicists. Wrong mind set - totally different thing. I said nothing about the fork getting longer than it is when it's at rest. Springing the tines off parallel makes the overall fork length temporarily shorter. It oscillates from full length to shorter than, and back. Have you even made an attempt to look at the geometry and understand what I'm talking about? >1 - I won't see for example that the wave amplitude is any less when >"isolating" >the sides from the bottom. Didn't you already report that your "isolation" of the bottom from the sides made more sound than your theory would indicate? >2- I won't see a 4 "rays" moving at 45 degree angles each where there is wave >interference that results in almost no movement along these. See them how? And in what medium - the board? >> That includes the sides of the handle as well as >> the bottom, which is why you eliminated nothing whatsoever by leaving the >> bottom of the fork handle open in your demo. The fork is still pistonically >> driving the board transversely. > >Maybe so... It seems easy enough to confirm this or not though given the >expected >patterns of the two different types of vibration would yield. Provided you can unambiguously detect and analyze the yielded patterns. >> That is also why the sound produced by the fork on the tabletop is loudest >> from the end of the handle, if you tried the experiment I asked you to. > >Er.... TILT ! :) That does not compute. Explain why your interpretation should >result in the loudest sound when the end is touched to the table instead of the >sides ? Why should the up and down pistonic action have any greater force when >dependent on where its sapped from. Which will is more likely to deflect an elastic surface, a cyclic linear physical force applied perpendicular to the surface, or the same force applied parallel to it? I don't see how to make it any simpler. How could this possibly not compute? >I did the same thing in my Bending >between the >knees panel experiment, and the fork was very very tight in the hole in the one >case, and hand held butt end on the surface in the other and I still get a >the same >differences in sound level. You did absolutely nothing like the same thing with that experiment, and still apparently have no idea what I'm talking about. In both cases in your demo, the fork handle motion was perpendicular to the panel. All you proved is that the "energy" doesn't leak out the end of the fork. >Another thing that bothers me about this... is why is it so easy to accept >this the >up and down motion of the handle when it is so difficult to accept the out >ward and >inward expansion /contraction of same along the sides. Actually as I think >of it, >if this second is true at all, then the first is not really up and down >pistonic >motion of the whole fork, rather it is the same kind of expansion, or... as >Russells choice of the word "elongation" that is at work here. It's easier to accept the fork motion because of the amplitude of movement. How much force does it take to stretch and compress a piece of steel the size of a tuning fork by any given amount compared to the force required to move it in space the same amount? All of the physical properties and formulas for working this out are available in literally thousands of texts out there (and the ones I've seen all pretty closely agree, so you don't have to spend the next month comparing them to decide). And I don't care in the least at this point what Russell says about elongation. Maybe some day it will be pertinent. Now, it isn't. I asked you to think for yourself rather than shuffling other peoples opinions into something you think somewhat resembles the problem. Had you done that, you would have seen that elongation wasn't even considered. >Interesting. I think actually I will contact the physics department here at >the U >and set up an experiment that should tell us what's what. And will you present the problem to them as I have presented it to you, right? Or will you ask them to answer strictly secondary wave generation effect questions having nothing to do with the basic motions of the fork, so that none of their time will have been spent on the question at hand? >If the wave >pattern in >the "knees" panel bears significant resemblance to the URL I sent you, then >I will >have to stick with my interpretation until something more likely shakes >these old >brain cells. Exactly my point, and the problem. You will find answers to the questions you ask, and as long as you don't ask the right questions, nothing will be learned. >I don't know whether you are wrong or not to be honest.... In fact I think >none of >us are in a position to say. Again, I disagree. Every single one of us should be, by our own volition. Anyone who is genuinely interested in knowing anything will make an honest attempt to not only explain what they think they know with the best set of scientifically accepted concepts, but will search through every one of these established facts and concepts trying their best to disprove their own ideas. If nothing can be found to preclude the possibility that a theorem is correct (including an alternate theorem, previously accepted by the same process), and much can be produced to support it, then it is a plausible explanation until one comes along that better fits the evidence and supportive science. This shouldn't be something that's done every once in a great while under duress, but every minute of every day. > How can we judge whether elementary physics are >being >overlooked, or are just provide us with oversimplified explanation unless we >are >advanced enough in our physics knowledge to know for sure ? By thinking. By asking why, why not, is this what it seems to be, and what if. I've been characterized by you and others in this movement discussion as not being willing to consider alternate outlooks. I assure you I have considered more alternatives, and modified my conclusions more times through the years than I could ever hope to keep track of. All I need to change my mind is better information than I have already compiled and processed. That's information rationally integrated into an established basis of reality, not rumors, random quotes, or someone's insistence that it is so. Make sense, and I'll listen. How advanced in physics does one have to be to know the difference between moving something in space, and stretching it? >I think that's >what's >at issue really here... just how trustworthy is our present understanding of >physics ? Is it really up to the job at hand here, or are we over estimating >ourselves ? If you feel that this is in the realm of what Man wasn't meant to know, or isn't capable of knowing, why do you waste time discussing it with other people's thoughts? Since you don't seem to think it's possible to learn anything by using your own brain - only decide whether of not to accept someone else's statement - should I just write you off and quit trying altogether? >Or are we over estimating the difficulty of describing the system ? If the "we" you refer to is the "wave driven" contingent, yes I think you all are. >Again.. I am still not sure that any of this matters, above and beyond the >academics of it all, for the everyday rebuilder and tech. It only doesn't matter if it is an utterly empty and superficial process used as a casual diversion having no educational content. For anyone interested in having even the most rudimentary understanding of what's happening in the physical world around him, it should be important enough to make an attempt. >But I am enjoying the >process, and I thank all of you for pushing me in this most enjoyable (for me) >direction. I am not. Hollering down a hole has little long term entertainment potential for me. >We have three different experiments going at the same time here... :) hard >to keep >from mixing them up. No, "we" don't, and I can only assume the arbitrary complication is why you threw that last one in. Are you truly interested in any of this stuff or not? Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC