Can anyone answer this question.

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 19, 2013, 10:47:16 AM

Any input on this yet?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 12:03:22 PM

Imagine you have a long piece of rope. At the end of that rope is another person. Imagine that person is at a distance and starts to glow, yet the second he does, he also yanks on the rope.
You see him glow immediately and after so many seconds the wave comes down the rope to you.
Not exactly the best way to explain, I agree, but I'm trying to give you a basic insight into what I'm getting at.

So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:27:52 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 08:34:47 AM

Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.

The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.

Light is produced from sound. The light from that sound will reflect through the atmosphere with the atmosphere being a connected mass of molecules/matter, so the reflection will hit you way way faster than the lesser frequency sound that is basically the fading of that light.

To your primitive ears, you may or may not hear that effect, as it's dependent on the size and frequency of it.
That's the basic of basic explanation, without getting into the complicated stuff.

So light travels faster than sound.  Ok glad that's settled.

Now as you claim they propagate through the atmosphere by molecules bumping into molecules, explain how molecules transmitting the 'light' bump into others faster than they do for sound.

Can you show an experiment showing this vast difference in speed of sound based on frequency.  You claim light is a different frequency of sound, so is there a measurable difference in speed of audible frequencies of sound?

Explain how sound can travel through denser matter (water/metal/etc ) faster and further, while light (being 'faster sound' according to you) can be stopped completely by a piece of construction paper.

Also, if you could, explain why a white surface reflects more light than a black surface, if light is nothing more than sound.

So light does travel faster than sound.

Because here you were implying it doesn't.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 17, 2013, 09:27:52 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 17, 2013, 08:34:47 AM

Does the light/sound from an event travel the same speed across a distance to reach me? 

Yes or no.

The simple answer is yes. The only difference is seeing the effect of the frequency to hearing the effect of that frequency.

Light is produced from sound. The light from that sound will reflect through the atmosphere with the atmosphere being a connected mass of molecules/matter, so the reflection will hit you way way faster than the lesser frequency sound that is basically the fading of that light.

To your primitive ears, you may or may not hear that effect, as it's dependent on the size and frequency of it.
That's the basic of basic explanation, without getting into the complicated stuff.
[/quote]
So light travels faster than sound.  Ok glad that's settled.

Now as you claim they propagate through the atmosphere by molecules bumping into molecules, explain how molecules transmitting the 'light' bump into others faster than they do for sound.

Can you show an experiment showing this vast difference in speed of sound based on frequency.  You claim light is a different frequency of sound, so is there a measurable difference in speed of audible frequencies of sound?

Explain how sound can travel through denser matter (water/metal/etc ) faster and further, while light (being 'faster sound' according to you) can be stopped completely by a piece of construction paper.

Also, if you could, explain why a white surface reflects more light than a black surface, if light is nothing more than sound.
[/quote]Pick one question at a time, which is it to be.

I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.

Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM

I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.

Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?

When you want to play a civil game, come back to me.

Scepti, he is being civil, and he's making extremely cogent points that you simply don't want to address.

When you talk about other people being civil, especially given your general demeanor, it comes across as nothing more than looking for any excuse you can find to weasel out of responding, or admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.

super e

Scepti, he is being civil, and he's making extremely cogent points that you simply don't want to address.

When you talk about other people being civil, especially given your general demeanor, it comes across as nothing more than looking for any excuse you can find to weasel out of responding, or admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nah, I don't think so.
I answer everything that's thrown at me. I'd like to see you answer them all in succession. So when someone comes in with a smug attitude, I just let them know and chill out and wait for them to ask questions in a civil manner. If not, then fair enough, they don't get any feedback.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 08:40:17 AM

Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.   It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.

Incorrect.  The aluminium boat is filled with air, which is much less dense than the gas the foil is sitting on, so the boat is buoyant. 

Is that not what I said?

You said on top of the boat, Rabhimself did not.

Quote from: hewholikespie on October 20, 2013, 12:14:47 PM

Scepti, he is being civil, and he's making extremely cogent points that you simply don't want to address.

When you talk about other people being civil, especially given your general demeanor, it comes across as nothing more than looking for any excuse you can find to weasel out of responding, or admitting you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nah, I don't think so.
I answer everything that's thrown at me.

No, you don't. You've ignored quite a lot of what people say to you, and what you do respond to, you rarely actually answer. I'd say more than half the time, you toss out a 'think about it' or 'it's common sense,' not answering anything at all and generally trying to act superior to everyone.

I'd like to see you answer them all in succession. So when someone comes in with a smug attitude, I just let them know and chill out and wait for them to ask questions in a civil manner. If not, then fair enough, they don't get any feedback.

So you admit you are picking and choosing what to respond to based on a perceived tone in your opponent's argument?
Yes, that's weaseling out of responding to relevant arguments if I've ever heard it, and I've definitely heard it.

I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2013, 09:44:28 AM

But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed."

It doesn't matter if it seems impossible by thinking about it. That's the type of thing scepti does. There is empirical evidence that suggests it is there and it does explain the motions of bodies as observed, with precision.

I didn't say it.
Tesla did.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 20, 2013, 09:51:20 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 20, 2013, 09:44:28 AM

But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed."

It doesn't matter if it seems impossible by thinking about it. That's the type of thing scepti does. There is empirical evidence that suggests it is there and it does explain the motions of bodies as observed, with precision.

I didn't say it.
Tesla did.

Well he is wrong. We use GR to predict everything from asteroids to orbits. We use it to send man made space machines deep into and beyond the solar system.

In regards to Einstein being some kind of plaigiarizer, this sort of thought goes along with a poor understanding of the state of science at the time. What made Einstein's work groundbreaking was not that he devised 4D transformations in space, or showed the invariance of the speed of light or what not, it was that Einstein showed physical connections where none had been previously seen. This is specifically in regards to relativity; his modelling of Brownian motion and work on the Photoelectric effect, the latter  won him the Nobel Prize, are another matter. And just so you know how awesome this guy was, he published his papers on all the above topics (SR, not GR) in one year. A career most physicists dream of while working as a part-time physicist.  [/fanboy]

Quote from: Rabhimself on October 20, 2013, 10:02:15 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on October 20, 2013, 08:40:17 AM

Rab,
Do you not understand what pressure is?  There is less pressure on top of the aluminum boat than there is under it in the more dense gas.   It just proves Scepti's example of gasses stack up on top of each other all the way to the dome, depending on density.

Incorrect.  The aluminium boat is filled with air, which is much less dense than the gas the foil is sitting on, so the boat is buoyant. 

Is that not what I said?

No you didn't say that.

You keep focusing on pressure and it isn't pressure difference that is causing what you can see.  The pressure within that tank (an open system) and the pressure outside it will be virtually the same - such is the expansive nature of gases.  There is nothing compressing the gas in that tank other than the air (another gas) on top of it.  So what happens?  The gas in the box pushes outwards until it meets the pressure of the gas pushing down on it.  If this was not true then the gas in the box would flow upwards and out of the box because the pressure within is greater than the pressure outwith.

Imagine you punched a hole in the side of a deodorant can (a closed system - so now you create an open one), the pressurized gases within would eject through the hole until the moment the pressure within the can is equal to the pressure surrounding it, then diffusion would, over time, see air molecules enter the can and the other deodorant gases leave.

That box of SF6 is an open system, like the deodorant can with the hole in it.  It's pressure is in equilibrium with the pressure surrounding it.  The reason the diffusion process is so slow is because the SF6 is so much heavier and dense than the air above, so gravity contains it within the box rather well - not pressure.

Why am I even trying to explain this to you?  You have no idea what you are talking about and you don't trust what I am telling you, even though I'm qualified to talk about this. 

It's useless, you don't understand so you will keep trying to refute me when you have no idea what you're on about.

Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.

Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.

Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.

Think of it like a rock star diving off a stage against a crowd of outstretched hands. He stays above, or buoyant, because his dense mass cannot overcome the amount of hands. That's a basic answer. It sure as hell isn't gravity.

How the earth formed is anybody's guess, but if scientists can say it started from nothing, then any guess will do, won't it.
I'm not quite as far as solving how we came to be as a cell, but I could give you an answer that would beg another answer, which would beg another answer. (infinitely)
I think you get the drift.

Pick one question at a time, which is it to be.

Ok, first question.

Now as you claim light and sound propagate through the atmosphere by molecules bumping into molecules, explain how molecules transmitting the 'light' bump into others faster than they do for sound.

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 20, 2013, 11:23:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM

I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.

Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?

When you want to play a civil game, come back to me.

Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 11:33:19 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 20, 2013, 11:23:18 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM

I didn't mention air inside the car. Think about it.

I did think about it.  That's why I brought it up.  Is the car already flooded with water then when you try to open the door?  That would make it easier, however another opening somewhere would completely reduce any suction effect created by the initial opening before the water can get by the seal.  You do understand this right?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 20, 2013, 10:32:50 AM

What difference is bricks under a man hold cover. We are talking about the perception of something being heavier. Think about it.

Again, I did think about it.  Apparently you don't think about it.  I also must question your reading comprehension now.  Using a couple bricks, 2 or 3, will allow more water to be under it for the buoyancy and reduce the slight suction created the initial moment you try to separate two flat surfaces under water.

Or, maybe you should use better examples that don't involve suction. 

If I step in mud and my boot doesn't want to pull up and out, is it because my boot has momentarily increased in weight (if so, please explain how), or is it because of suction?

When you want to play a civil game, come back to me.

Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.

I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight. It should be plain and simple to you that to lift a heavy object, (assuming it has little or no buoyancy), it will feel heavier to pull up than it would to do the same thing on dry land.
Thinking it won't, is like saying that air friction is more dense than water friction.

In your rock in a container case, it's bound to be heavier  as you lift it out , because it's filled with water as you expose it to the atmosphere, which changes the whole set up, as you know.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 21, 2013, 07:50:07 AM

Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.

Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.

Speaking of buoyancy, here's something else that I was wondering about with your theory.

I have two balloons of equal size volume and color.  I fill one with helium, and one with oxygen, both with the same amount so they're both the same size, temperature, and pressure.

According to you the air above is what pushes things down, so why does one balloon drop and the other rise.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 08:36:11 AM

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 21, 2013, 07:50:07 AM

Skepti, what do you believe causes bouency.
Also, how did the Earth form.

Buoyancy is basically agitated molecules against less agitated molecules.

Speaking of buoyancy, here's something else that I was wondering about with your theory.

I have two balloons of equal size volume and color.  I fill one with helium, and one with oxygen, both with the same amount so they're both the same size, temperature, and pressure.

According to you the air above is what pushes things down, so why does one balloon drop and the other rise.

The air filled balloon is much more dense and cannot be squeezed up, as it's part of it's own environment, plus the added balloon.
The helium balloon if filled with much much less density and it less agitated , meaning the more dense agitated air molecules agitate it upwards.

Liken it to dropping a balloon full of marbles into a large vibrating container. The balloon will fall through to the bottom due to the more dense fill of it with likewise marbles.
Now imagine another balloon filled with polystyrene larger balls filling that balloon and sitting that on the marbles in the container. It can vibrate all it likes but all it will do is keep pushing that balloon up. It will not fall through.
Try it if you want.

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 09:35:59 AM

Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.

I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight. It should be plain and simple to you that to lift a heavy object, (assuming it has little or no buoyancy), it will feel heavier to pull up than it would to do the same thing on dry land.
Thinking it won't, is like saying that air friction is more dense than water friction.

In your rock in a container case, it's bound to be heavier  as you lift it out , because it's filled with water as you expose it to the atmosphere, which changes the whole set up, as you know.

It was easier to lift in the water than it was out of the water.  Things are lighter in water. 

It was a milk crate.  They don't have a solid bottom or sides.  Look up an image of one.  The water drains out as fast as you can lift it out of the water. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Floating Bowling Balls - Cool Science Experiment

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 09:48:57 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on October 21, 2013, 09:35:59 AM

Very well, I'll be straight to the point.

Your examples involve some type of suction with the initial movement of a flat object through dense water versus whether an object actually weighs more in water. 

I was dredging for gold last summer, and was lifting rocks, or a container filled with rocks, repeatedly up out of the water filled hole and dumping them to the side.  They were lighter in the water.

I'm not talking about initial weight. I'm talking about perceived weight. It should be plain and simple to you that to lift a heavy object, (assuming it has little or no buoyancy), it will feel heavier to pull up than it would to do the same thing on dry land.
Thinking it won't, is like saying that air friction is more dense than water friction.

In your rock in a container case, it's bound to be heavier  as you lift it out , because it's filled with water as you expose it to the atmosphere, which changes the whole set up, as you know.

It was easier to lift in the water than it was out of the water.  Things are lighter in water. 

It was a milk crate.  They don't have a solid bottom or sides.  Look up an image of one.  The water drains out as fast as you can lift it out of the water. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Floating Bowling Balls - Cool Science Experiment

I don't actually think you read anything I say, or maybe snippets.

I don't actually think you read anything I say, or maybe snippets.

You are claiming objects aren't lighter under water.  Is this correct?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 21, 2013, 10:50:32 AM

I don't actually think you read anything I say, or maybe snippets.

You are claiming objects aren't lighter under water.  Is this correct?

Objects are neither lighter nor heavier, underwater. They are just perceived to be due to varying factors, such as buoyancy, density, area and absorption.

If you read my posts you will see that I'm talking about lifting an object like a man hole cover. Read that and understand what I'm saying and you will get a better idea.

Silhouette, scepti has me blocked so he won't see this but he doesn't understand that weight is a word that has everything to do with gravity. What he means to say is mass.

I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.

So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 20, 2013, 10:15:27 PM

I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.

So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?

They do not propagate as easily, and are considerably less useful for detecting objects. They can still certainly be used, but are not as ideal as the other.

But the matter of mediums is important for distinguishing between light and sound.

For example, light can travel through a near vacuum with no issue at all, while sound has difficulty, dropping in volume or stopping entirely.

Sound travels quite well through opaque gases, liquids, and solids, but light is stopped entirely.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on October 21, 2013, 01:08:29 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 20, 2013, 10:15:27 PM

I don't know whether this is relevant to the topic or whether it muddies up the waters.  (pardon the pun.)

Radio Waves are used in the air for Radar and Sound Waves are used in the water for Sonar . Just an illustration of the differences.

So what happens if radio waves are used in water and sound waves are used in the air?

They do not propagate as easily, and are considerably less useful for detecting objects. They can still certainly be used, but are not as ideal as the other.

But the matter of mediums is important for distinguishing between light and sound.

For example, light can travel through a near vacuum with no issue at all, while sound has difficulty, dropping in volume or stopping entirely.

Sound travels quite well through opaque gases, liquids, and solids, but light is stopped entirely.

Light is the mere reflection of the effect of sound   so naturally it's going to reflect through anything that allows it to, like glass and such.
The following sound will always hit a barrier, if that barrier is a solid barrier.

It's just a case of frequencies.