Waves moving through an isotropic field move smoothly. Anisotropy refracts waves. Waves are anisotropic. High anisotropy equals high energy. The geometry and anisotropy of some waves is such that the strong anisotropc effects of part of the wave refracts other parts of the wave and vice versa in a geometric harmony so that the wave sort of chases its own tail. This can be visualized as something of a pucker in a field. A high energy, (relatively) stationary wave is strongly anisotropic internal to itself and exerts a weaker and in a vastly broader spacial extent relative to its strong internal anisotropy a weak anisotropic effect on the isotropic field around it createing a field of anisotropy more anisotropc near it than that farther from the pucker. This can be visualized as the "pucker" "pulling" on the field.

The anisotropic field around a pucker refracts waves towards the pucker.

The pucker is generaly stationary. But the wave chasing its tail that composes the pucker is in motion. The pucker will remain stationary or at rest unless the internal wave is refracted by an anisotropic change in the isotropy of the field in which it rests and/or of which it is composed. This resistance to change in direction unless there is an anisotropic change in the surrounding field defines its mass.

Action occurs when two or more puckers also refracting waves towards themselves interact. Two or more puckers, themselves waves existing in each others anisotropic fields, refract towards each other. Gravity then is the natural refraction of waves moving through an anisotropic field.. Refraction occurs equaly in opposite directions. The anisotropy of the field is proportional to the energy of the waves composing the pucker or collection of puckers. and since the puckers and their anisotropic effects exist in a three dimetional space. is inversly proportional to the cube root of the distance to their centers outside of a certain distance from the centers.

Some waves are high energy and tightly constrained spacially. They are the pucker waves or particles. Others are low energy and more difuse spacially. They are the electromagnetic waves.

The geometry of the anisotropic effect of some puckers harmonize with the geometry and anisotropic effects of other puckers so that puckers can gather and chase each others tails. Concievably a pucker could have a geometry of anisotropic effects that harmonizes with a number of puckers of varying geometries. This could be the "gluon.

The electromagnetic wave or electron normally moves smoothly in harmony with the anisotropic effect surrounding a collection of puckers. But the electron moves all over the anisotropic field and the anisotropic effects of a collection of puckers is not neccesarilly smooth. It passes through the strong anisotropy near or even into the collection of puckers. The anisotropy near and in the collection of puckers is strongly anisotropic and irregularly anisotropic. I liken this as a truck traveling around a gently winding mountain road. But sometimes it has to go around "Dead Man's Curve". Normally the electron can take the curve but if the energy of the electron or payload of the truck is above a certain quantity then harmony with the anisotropy of the field is lost and the payload flys off the truck or the excess energy flys off the electron.

The truck can load up at any rate or the electron can absorb energy at any harmonic frequency. But the load will always fall off when it is above a certain quantity when it goes around "dead man's curve".

Refraction is implicitly a slowing of the wave or a change in frequency. The anisotropy of the field is anisotropic in time as well as space. Depending on the element involved, and the concurrent variable of the geometry of its anisotropic field, the energy that went in will take a variable amount of time to leave the atom. This variable slowing causes the characteristic color of light emitted by various elements. Regardless of the frequency of the light input the frequency and energy emitted or the payload of the truck is always the same for that particular element.

Waves in this harmony with each other are called baryonic matter. Dark matter is waves that don't harmonize with baryonic matter but do cause anisotropic refraction of baryonic matter.

aastrotech. Does this mean you'll be building a tractor beam for TNG starships?

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

If they pay enough.

PS
The rules suggest that you shouldn't post a copy of the whole message you are responding to unless neccessary. A person with over 2000 posts should know this.

What is "field" in this context? Do you mean "medium", perchance?


Can you show us how that works?

As far as I understand, inhomogeneity of the medium yields refraction.


What if we have a spherical wave?


Can you show us how that works?


Are you saying that different parts of the same wave affect each? Is this some sort of action at a distance, or have you something like a double slit setup in mind?


Sorry, but this is just word salad.


Since when do lenses change the frequency of the light?


I think you need to study more rigorously the behaviour of waves.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I suppose either word could be used. I chose field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic

Originally Posted by aastrotech
Anisotropy refracts waves.

If you've seen a video of an explosion in clear air where you can see the shockwave expand out from the explosion then what you are seing is the change in pressure in the shockwave refracting the light waves passing through it. In effect one wave refracting another wave.


Then it would be anisotropic to the surrounding field.

Originally Posted by aastrotech
High anisotropy equals high energy.
A ripple has low anisotropy and low energy a tsunami has high anisotropy and high energy.

Originally Posted by aastrotech
The geometry and anisotropy of some waves is such that the strong anisotropc effects of part of the wave refracts other parts of the wave and vice versa in a geometric harmony so that the wave sort of chases its own tail.
I'm talking about a complicated wave form here that could as easily be understood as two waves refracting each other.




Originally Posted by aastrotech
This can be visualized as something of a pucker in a field. A high energy, (relatively) stationary wave is strongly anisotropic internal to itself and exerts a weaker and in a vastly broader spacial extent relative to its strong internal anisotropy a weak anisotropic effect on the isotropic field around it createing a field of anisotropy more anisotropc near it than that farther from the pucker. This can be visualized as the "pucker" "pulling" on the field.

I don't appreciate the snippy tone. Kindly watch your tone in the future.

You don't really ask a question here but I see from your other failures that an analogous description might help.

Imagine a piece of plastic wrap stretched over the top of a bowl. It's smooth or isotropic. A wave moving across will travel smoothly. Imagine a spatter of hot grease landing on the plastic and burning a pucker in it. Obviously the pucker is not smooth thus it is anisotropic. But the pucker also pulls on the unburned surrounding plastic increasing the overall tension and therefore the anisotropy around it. Greater near the pucker and less farther away. A wave then travrling across the plastic will be refracted by the resulting anisotropy. However I don't want to characterize the specific dynamic of the anisotropy mentioned in the OP as "tension". It could be "thinning", "softening", "hardening" "dispersing" "time dialating" etc. the point is changing the isotropy and therefore the index of refraction of the field.

At that point I was talking about a sub quantum level change,


I think you need to brush up on terminology then talk to me about behaviour..

But physicists use "medium", because "field" has other meanings.



The refraction is the consequence of the pressure wave changing the density of the air, that is, making the medium inhomogeneous.

And it does not answer my question: can you show us how anisotropy is responsible for refraction of waves?
Using you example: can you shows us that the light of the explosion is refracted?



A spherical wave is the same in any direction (remember: "Isotropy is uniformity in all directions" and "Isotropic radiation has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement, and an isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how the test particle is oriented" from your Wikipedia link), therefore it is isotropic.

I think you call "anisotropy" what the rest of the world, and the physicists, call "inhomogeneity".



How about a stick of dynamite and a nuclear bomb, both a high altitude? The shockwaves are both spherical.

Also, can you stop using analogies and actually show us something more rigorous?



What if we don't have a complicated wave?
What if it is just a spherical wave (which is isotropic) or a simple plane wave (which is anisotropic)?




I am just calling a spade a spade.



You don't understand: I am not asking for analogies. I want a formal and rigorous presentation of your ideas.



In this case, the ripple and the tsunami are both isotropic.



The surface is no longer homogeneous either.



And if you look at it from the point of view of the pucker, the surface is isotropic.



But the effect does not depend on the direction in which the wave travels across surface.


Except that in your analogy the refraction does not depend on the direction of travel, and therefore it is not a matter of isotropy or anisotropy of the surface. Infact, it is the consequence of having a region of the surface being different than the surrounding areas: an inhomogeneity. Just like a lens in optics.



You said: "Refraction is implicitly a slowing of the wave or a change in frequency."
And refraction is how lenses in classical optics work.

If you want to avoid misunderstandings, you need to be more careful and thorough with your definitions.



You are the one who is using non standard terminology.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

papageno,

Your problems here are obvious. Let alone your poor reading comprehension, minimal vocabulary and lack of social grace, untill you learn the roll analogy plays in science, in particular in this area of physics, you have no buisness commenting here.

Wow.
Bitter much?

I could see you saying something like that to Me.
But to Papageno?

You may as well pop over into the CT forum and accuse JayUtah of being a temperamental and angry poster.
Or you might as well have gone to Q&A and accused Grant Hutchison of not knowing any celestial mechanics.

If you were looking to offend him, I would think you failed spectacularly simply because the misapplication of your words is so darned funny it's hard to be mad at ya.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Does this mean that you are not going to address my points?
Or do you think that attacking my person will distract from the fact that you are confusing inhomogeneity and anisotropy, and that you cannot support your position in a rigorous manner?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Hold on folks.

papageno reads a link I post and misapplies the term isotropy as well as his own choice of word homogeneity to a situation where the word symmetry should be applied (as in "And if you look at it from the point of view of the pucker, the surface is isotropic") I point out that he has poor reading comprehension. He insists that my usage of the word field is not standard in physics and that medium should be used. As if quantum field, electromagnetic field, gravitational field, Maxwell's field equations aren't standard in physics. I point out that he has minimal vocabulary. He apparently doesn't understand the analogy of the pucker and makes a snippy comment, I take the trouble to write another analogy using houshold materials so he might better understand and he makes more snippy comments and insists that analogies not be used. As if the phrase "light moves like a wave" isn't an analogy or the standard model or any models aren't analogies. I call his continuing snippy in a physics discussion porr social grace and I get a warning from a moderator for personal attack and a snippy comment from the peanut gallery.

I don't think I made a personal attack. Without turning this into a basic physics, language and etiquette lesson (nor desiring to take the trouble for same considering the last) I pointed out some obvious deficiencies in his postings.

Frankly, despite papageno's snippy aspersions of "word salad" regarding my "pucker" analogy I think he was being disingenuous. I suspect that he did in fact understand somewhat. I think, given his obvious limitations, that he obviously didn't understand fully. Due to his lack of comprehension he disagreed with the conclusion of my model. I might have been more inclined to help him understand my model in spite of his limitations but there are some basic considerations that have to be addressed first like snippyness. If you all think that snippyness is ok but that pointing out errors in sombody's posts is an attack then you all have some insoluable problems.

Show us examples from actual textbooks where they say "light travels through an electromagnetic field" or "sound moves through a density field".



Despite the fact that I used your own analogies, you never answered my questions:


Light is a wave, it is not an analogy.
An electromagnetic wave satisfies a (mathematical) wave equation.

Physicists use analogies to make the rigorous treatment more understandable, not to substitute it.


Style over substance.
Instead of complaining about my style, you should address the substance of my points.



Please show us exactly what are these "obvious" deficiencies and what is wrong with them.



It is fairly clear that you are confusing isotropy and homogeneity.
The fact that you prefer complicated waves and avoid my examples (see my questions above), is a sign that you cannot make your idea work as you would like.



Why don't you stop complaining about my tone, and show us exactly why my points don't stand.

It's time to put your money where your mouth is.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I take it you don't intend to be polite. I have answers to your questions but if you are not going to be polite I don't intend to indulge you.

Can you indulge me then?

It's not a matter of indulging anyone. It's a simple matter of the rules!

It's your duty to answer questions by the rules of the forum.

'I don't know' is a valid answer. If you are going to use your own definitions for standard scientific terms then you need to define them for us.

And show us some maths!

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

You should take a closer look at the rules.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I'll quote you from the first paragraph of the rules; “Be polite”.

While sophisticated concepts composed a number of elements have similarities with a salad in that they both have a number of elements, rude comments like "word salad" "woo woo'" and "hand waving" are verbal garbage. They give no clue as to where to start to improve the poster's understanding and they make no point that can be disputed. They are the verbal equivalent of nonfalsafieable evidence.

It is an indulgence which I will not grant to communicate with a rude person. It is an indulgence for myself to answer polite questions. In fact it is a pleasure. I have no problem answering polite questions. But I can't get a grip on questions with rude comments mixed in. I think that if you all edit your questions and points carefully to remove the rude comments you will find that some of your points fall apart for yourselves.

Why don't you address the points raised? I don't think Papageno was being rude, he was being direct.

Why obfuscate with 'polite' language when the direct points can be made?

IS this a misdirection to avoid answering?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

If you think I have behaved inappropriately, you can report me to the moderators.


Comments like these?
Can you point to the rudeness in these comments?
If you cannot, please address these points.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

This is a common ATM complaint, direct questions are passed off as rudeness.

All aastrotech has to do is answer your points if he is able.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I'm going to take what I think is the main missunderstanding in your questions from which a number of your other errors stem.


A spherical wave is the same in any direction (remember: "Isotropy is uniformity in all directions" and "Isotropic radiation has the same intensity regardless of the direction of measurement, and an isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how the test particle is oriented" from your Wikipedia link), therefore it is isotropic.

Your missunderstanding is the phrase "all directions".

All directions means exactly that, ALL directions, not just all directions from a single point. It means all directions from all points. The "all points" is understood. Kind of like how in algebra AB is understood as one times A times one times B. When you learn algebra you learn that. When you learn about refraction you learn about isotropy. I suspect your mistake stems from an attempt to understand the term isotropic from the context of isotropic radiation discussed in the link I posted. If you had read further you would have also read

"An isotropic radiator is a theoretical point source of waves which exhibits the same magnitude or properties when measured in all directions. It has no preferred direction of radiation. It radiates uniformly in all directions over a sphere centred on the source. It is a reference radiator with which other sources are compared. Isotropic radiators obey Lambert's law."

But more to the point

"In reality, a coherent isotropic radiator cannot exist, as the isotropic radiator, with a radiation pattern (as expressed in spherical coordinates) of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic_radiator
would violate the Helmholtz Wave Equation, as derived from Maxwell's Equations.

You might want to look over Wiki's wave definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
where it says "waves of electromagnetic radiation (and probably gravitational radiation) can travel through vacuum, that is, without a medium."
Which I already knew and is why I chose not to use the term medium in my OP.

Also read the wiki article "Field (physics)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

Give yourself some time to mull this over but consider that your first replies to my OP were made 11 days after I posted and it is now 12 days untill the clock runs out on this thread. Stay on topic and we might get you to understand some things.

aastrotech, we have seen that you can use the quote function. So, if you are quoting from somebody, it is polite to attribute the quote to that person. Not to mention that it makes reading your post easier to comprehend.


Please go to a library and read some physics textbook.
You will see that "isotropic" means that there is not preferred direction, just like in the definition of "isotropic radiator" that you quoted: "It has no preferred direction of radiation."



You must have forgotten to provide us examples for actual textbooks where they say something like: "electromagnetic waves travel through an electromagnetic field". After all, you claimed that "field" and "medium" can both used with same meaning.



Your condescending tone is out of place, considering that you tried to avoid my points. Also, the fact that you quote Wikipedia as a source is not encouraging.

So, what about the rest of my list?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Well, I don't see any answers?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Well the rules say I have to answer pertenant questions. Did you ask a question pertenant to the OP? From you I see some non pertenent comments, some non pertenent questions about dodging non pertenant questions from another poster which were on their face based on missunderstandings, missquotes and unsupported aspersions against a source for simple definitions.

I took them on in relative good faith but see that neither this site's posters nor moderators act either in good faith or according to the facts at all. The moderators clearly encourage posters to violate the rules and any principles of discussion as long as they are in support of "the mainstream".

No answers then.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

That's right. No answers to non pertenant questions which are on their face based on missunderstandings, missquotes and unsupported aspersions against a source for simple definitions.

Aastrotech, I find Papageno's questions to be very pertinent as they try to establish a common understanding and language. Either address those questions - politely - or I will be forced to close this thread.

I also remind you of Rule 13:

13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

(snip)

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned. ...

This is your warning.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov