| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Seymour Grass" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2003 12:26:33 AM |
| Object: |
In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
From: "Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com>
Subject: Cherenkov Radiation and the House of Blue Light
Date: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:17 AM
At his website, Dr. Baez has written as follows . . .
"A sonic boom is a shock wave which propagates from an aircraft or other
object which is going faster than sound through the air (or other medium).
In subsonic flight air is deflected smoothly around the wings. In
supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound. The result is
a sudden pressure change or shock wave which propagates away from the
aircraft in a cone at the speed of sound."
Should Professor Baez (or anyone other than Uncool Alphonso) be so kind
(letting Uncle Al out from the first) I would be pleased to see just this
much of the above statement clarified . . .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound." -- John Baez
Okay, a few questions immediately arise as to the meaning of that laudably
powerless use of the English language so typical for a mathematician, but
let's face it, different strokes is for different folks, ain't it, and if
math rather than English is your most deeply studied language (and it is),
if it is the primary means you have practiced for expressing your thoughts,
then how can you be expected to discover that an alphabetical language of
words applied with perfect precision of conceptual definition is altogether
so powerful as math for discovering and expressing scientific principle and
fact?
No, your time will not allow for it and so you must leave it to one who due
to his own area of specialization has had the time for it so that now you
lucky boys and girls may be shown this marvel of science as it unfolds right
here before your wondering eyes from the said questions which the above
quoted language has engendered. But first, once again, the statement of the
very dear, greatly revered Joanie's cousin, Dr. Baez . . .
". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead cannot
travel faster than sound."
1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"? Truly, the only thing
that cannot travel faster than sound is sound, and we all know that. But
here, according to the grammatical mathematics of that construction, it is
the "effect", the impact, a sound of wing pushing air at supersonic speed
which cannot travel faster than sound? No! It cannot travel period--forget
"faster than sound" because there is no sound faster than sound and at
supersonic speed there is no sound of wing pushed air because the air is not
capable of carrying that supersonic wave so a shock wave of a body breaking
that barrier is heard instead. Indeed! There is another sound altogether,
just one sound digitally produced, that of a body breaking the sound
barrier. But let us see again how you physicists have been construing it .
.. .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound."
Can you guys get any more abstruse? To construe this so that the thought may
be communicated, it should have to be reworded as follows . . .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the [cut "effect] (impact
and turbulence) of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead, being faster
than sound, cannot travel as a waveform through the air."
Neither the air nor any other medium, no material substance is fine enough,
aether-like enough to carry such a supersonic wave. And yet we hear the
"boom". Why?
Now of course we *know* what Dr. Baez is trying to express by that, we know
what he has in mind, as we ought to know he's on the wrong track, he along
with the entire science of physics, to think that this is just a mundane
matter of ". . . aircraft wings pushing the air ahead [which] cannot travel
faster than sound." Dr. Baez, let alone logic itself, tells us that the boom
we hear which is a ". . . sudden pressure change or shock wave which
propagates away from the aircraft in a cone at the speed of sound" is
nothing to do with the sound of impact of air on wing--that sound as a wave
cannot be carried on the air and so the shock wave is the effect of
something else far more subtle that has nothing to do with air which is
merely there to carry the shock wave boom. Now, to give some consideration
to what that "something else" is . . .
Like all physicists the good professor Baez is in far too much a hurry to
get on with showing us the what may be seen from the outside looking in by
means of geometric measurements relating to the conic form of the shock
wave. Before he has even begun to exhaust the power of the written word to
investigate the matter further he has simply, like all his brethren of the
physics cloth, just left it with that linguistic mess, moving on to the nice
clean precise stuff he can do with his numbers.
Not good enough! Measurements can describe the effects of things, but
rarely if ever do they penetrate to causes. They certainly may aid in the
quest, and greatly at that, but for science to leave unused the immensely
logical power of the written word untapped, disrespected and falsely
regarded as imprecise is folly beyond the merest hope of expression! But if
anyone should understand the power of the spoken or lyrical word, whether in
scientific discourse or in mournful lament of Child ballad, that would be
the fortunate son who is cousin to the immortal greatness that lives in the
beautiful and powerful, and world moving, Ms Joan Baez. And so what can I
say to the good professor except "Tsk, tsk, tsk"?
We move to the next question by way of a momentary reiteration of the
foregoing points . . .
2. An "effect" of what, on *what*? Would the able professor of
mathematics be speaking merely of an effect on the wing? An effect on the
air? An effect of impact of the wing on the air? Or are we really speaking
here of an effect on spacetime?
Tut-tut-tut, my boys. Just hold your horses, there. Of course you've never
heard of such a thing, or are so used to snorting at it from a sense of your
foregone "knowledge" gained from a rote memorization of the wrong idea, that
you simply refuse to so much as entertain the thought? But that is not
science, it is mere prejudice come of listening to too very few songs of Ms
Joan Baez from which some of us have learned to prepare in our heads a mind
liberated to an objectivity sufficiently clear to hear of things not easy to
consider or never heard before or formerly regarded with ears deafened by
drone of foregone dogma, all of which has made discovery, the chief aim of
science, less apt to happen, and lest we should forget . . .
3. The first thing any good man learns in life, as in science is to swallow
the pride of his unknowing, and any man incapable of that is no scientist,
nor a man worth the plutonium to blast him to Pluto. So then, let us just
turn things right-side up here and begin to inquire as to the cause, since
the effect is already known, such that any further inquiry into it is only,
as we've seen *begging the question*.
4. Who among you has the requisite objectivity of an Einstein-like humility
to eschew every fool's conceit of his own professional status to invite,
e.g. the likes of a layman such as Immanuel Velikovksy, not just once, but
many times into his study? Yes, I'm sure there are many among you who
regard yourselves better and wiser than Einstein as to any such practice of
open-mindedness like that. But now you see the enormous extent of
objectivity it takes to rate as among the greatest of scientists--so will
you fall short of that mark by writing off a fellow like me as being
unworthy of the least consideration strictly because I can't or won't work a
problem of even the most elementary algebra? Will you be so silly, still as
to think that everyone must speak the same language, or get the hell out of
the club? Okay, the greatest scientists know better than that as they do
indeed recognize that there's more than one way to skin a theoretical
Shroedinger's Cat.
What is the last sound you will hear? It is the sound of something leaving
the realm of sound, it is that impact at the sound barrier of a body
accelerating in spacetime to a critical level of Lorentz contraction in the
direction of motion which generates an electromagnetic shock expressed also
through the air as a wake, a pressure wave, as the slamming of that door to
the supersonic realm. On a grand scale, as with lightning and thunder, as
with the electromagnetic magic being generated at great speed by the
armature of a dynamo, it is all to do with motion in spacetime generating a
*shock* of spacetime contraction. You may have thought very little of it at
such low sub-luminal speeds, but just how little contraction of the very
fabric of reality itself did you really think it would take, if even your
own body should become a static generator by walking out the door of one
Reno casino to the next for the biggest blue spark shock of your life on the
stainless handle of the door to Harrah's? Let not the old explanations jade
you and occlude your vision and hence your sense of awe for that spark, my
dear Laddies.
5. But is that all? And what might be meant by the sound of one hand
thunderclapping upon the slamming of the door to the House of Blue Light?
What really is going on in the laboratory of Cherenkov in the superluminal
Blue Boom Room?
Well, I've got a vague glimmer of a hunch, but now that y'all have been
witness to this marvel of science in plain words, a little folk-song, a
little Zen, it's your turn at bat, baby, if you think you've got what it
takes. ;-)
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"God is the sole being who has no need to exist in order to
reign." --Charles Baudelaire, _Intimate Journals_
.
|
|
| User: "Seymour Grass" |
|
| Title: Re: In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
12 Sep 2003 01:24:03 PM |
|
|
From: "Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com>
Subject: Cherenkov Radiation and the House of Blue Light
Date: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:17 AM
At his website, Dr. Baez has written as follows . . .
"A sonic boom is a shock wave which propagates from an aircraft or other
object which is going faster than sound through the air (or other medium).
In subsonic flight air is deflected smoothly around the wings. In
supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound. The result is
a sudden pressure change or shock wave which propagates away from the
aircraft in a cone at the speed of sound."
Should Professor Baez (or anyone other than Uncool Alphonso) be so kind
(letting Uncle Al out from the first) I would be pleased to see just this
much of the above statement clarified . . .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound." -- John Baez
Okay, a few questions immediately arise as to the meaning of that laudably
powerless use of the English language so typical for a mathematician, but
let's face it, different strokes is for different folks, ain't it, and if
math rather than English is your most deeply studied language (and it is),
if it is the primary means you have practiced for expressing your thoughts,
then how can you be expected to discover that an alphabetical language of
words applied with perfect precision of conceptual definition is altogether
so powerful as math for discovering and expressing scientific principle and
fact?
No, your time will not allow for it and so you must leave it to one who due
to his own area of specialization has had the time for it so that now you
lucky boys and girls may be shown this marvel of science as it unfolds right
here before your wondering eyes from the said questions which the above
quoted language has engendered. But first, once again, the statement of the
very dear, greatly revered Joanie's cousin, Dr. Baez . . .
". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead cannot
travel faster than sound."
1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"? Truly, the only thing
that cannot travel faster than sound is sound, and we all know that. But
here, according to the grammatical mathematics of that construction, it is
the "effect", the impact, a sound of wing pushing air at supersonic speed
which cannot travel faster than sound? No! It cannot travel period--forget
"faster than sound" because there is no sound faster than sound and at
supersonic speed there is no sound of wing pushed air because the air is not
capable of carrying that supersonic wave so a shock wave of a body breaking
that barrier is heard instead. Indeed! There is another sound altogether,
just one sound digitally produced, that of a body breaking the sound
barrier. But let us see again how you physicists have been construing it .
.. .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound."
Can you guys get any more abstruse? To construe this so that the thought may
be communicated, it should have to be reworded as follows . . .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the [cut "effect] (impact
and turbulence) of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead, being faster
than sound, cannot travel as a waveform through the air."
Neither the air nor any other medium, no material substance is fine enough,
aether-like enough to carry such a supersonic wave. And yet we hear the
"boom". Why?
Now of course we *know* what Dr. Baez is trying to express by that, we know
what he has in mind, as we ought to know he's on the wrong track, he along
with the entire science of physics, to think that this is just a mundane
matter of ". . . aircraft wings pushing the air ahead [which] cannot travel
faster than sound." Dr. Baez, let alone logic itself, tells us that the boom
we hear which is a ". . . sudden pressure change or shock wave which
propagates away from the aircraft in a cone at the speed of sound" is
nothing to do with the sound of impact of air on wing--that sound as a wave
cannot be carried on the air and so the shock wave is the effect of
something else far more subtle that has nothing to do with air which is
merely there to carry the shock wave boom. Now, to give some consideration
to what that "something else" is . . .
Like all physicists the good professor Baez is in far too much a hurry to
get on with showing us the what may be seen from the outside looking in by
means of geometric measurements relating to the conic form of the shock
wave. Before he has even begun to exhaust the power of the written word to
investigate the matter further he has simply, like all his brethren of the
physics cloth, just left it with that linguistic mess, moving on to the nice
clean precise stuff he can do with his numbers.
Not good enough! Measurements can describe the effects of things, but
rarely if ever do they penetrate to causes. They certainly may aid in the
quest, and greatly at that, but for science to leave unused the immensely
logical power of the written word untapped, disrespected and falsely
regarded as imprecise is folly beyond the merest hope of expression! But if
anyone should understand the power of the spoken or lyrical word, whether in
scientific discourse or in mournful lament of Child ballad, that would be
the fortunate son who is cousin to the immortal greatness that lives in the
beautiful and powerful, and world moving, Ms Joan Baez. And so what can I
say to the good professor except "Tsk, tsk, tsk"?
We move to the next question by way of a momentary reiteration of the
foregoing points . . .
2. An "effect" of what, on *what*? Would the able professor of
mathematics be speaking merely of an effect on the wing? An effect on the
air? An effect of impact of the wing on the air? Or are we really speaking
here of an effect on spacetime?
Tut-tut-tut, my boys. Just hold your horses, there. Of course you've never
heard of such a thing, or are so used to snorting at it from a sense of your
foregone "knowledge" gained from a rote memorization of the wrong idea, that
you simply refuse to so much as entertain the thought? But that is not
science, it is mere prejudice come of listening to too very few songs of Ms
Joan Baez from which some of us have learned to prepare in our heads a mind
liberated to an objectivity sufficiently clear to hear of things not easy to
consider or never heard before or formerly regarded with ears deafened by
drone of foregone dogma, all of which has made discovery, the chief aim of
science, less apt to happen, and lest we should forget . . .
3. The first thing any good man learns in life, as in science is to swallow
the pride of his unknowing, and any man incapable of that is no scientist,
nor a man worth the plutonium to blast him to Pluto. So then, let us just
turn things right-side up here and begin to inquire as to the cause, since
the effect is already known, such that any further inquiry into it is only,
as we've seen *begging the question*.
4. Who among you has the requisite objectivity of an Einstein-like humility
to eschew every fool's conceit of his own professional status to invite,
e.g. the likes of a layman such as Immanuel Velikovksy, not just once, but
many times into his study? Yes, I'm sure there are many among you who
regard yourselves better and wiser than Einstein as to any such practice of
open-mindedness like that. But now you see the enormous extent of
objectivity it takes to rate as among the greatest of scientists--so will
you fall short of that mark by writing off a fellow like me as being
unworthy of the least consideration strictly because I can't or won't work a
problem of even the most elementary algebra? Will you be so silly, still as
to think that everyone must speak the same language, or get the hell out of
the club? Okay, the greatest scientists know better than that as they do
indeed recognize that there's more than one way to skin a theoretical
Shroedinger's Cat.
What is the last sound you will hear? It is the sound of something leaving
the realm of sound, it is that impact at the sound barrier of a body
accelerating in spacetime to a critical level of Lorentz contraction in the
direction of motion which generates an electromagnetic shock expressed also
through the air as a wake, a pressure wave, as the slamming of that door to
the supersonic realm. On a grand scale, as with lightning and thunder, as
with the electromagnetic magic being generated at great speed by the
armature of a dynamo, it is all to do with motion in spacetime generating a
*shock* of spacetime contraction. You may have thought very little of it at
such low sub-luminal speeds, but just how little contraction of the very
fabric of reality itself did you really think it would take, if even your
own body should become a static generator by walking out the door of one
Reno casino to the next for the biggest blue spark shock of your life on the
stainless handle of the door to Harrah's? Let not the old explanations jade
you and occlude your vision and hence your sense of awe for that spark, my
dear Laddies.
5. But is that all? And what might be meant by the sound of one hand
thunderclapping upon the slamming of the door to the House of Blue Light?
What really is going on in the laboratory of Cherenkov in the superluminal
Blue Boom Room?
Well, I've got a vague glimmer of a hunch, but now that y'all have been
witness to this marvel of science in plain words, a little folk-song, a
little Zen, it's your turn at bat, baby, if you think you've got what it
takes. ;-)
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"God is the sole being who has no need to exist in order to
reign." --Charles Baudelaire, _Intimate Journals_
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seymour Grass" |
|
| Title: Re: In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
12 Sep 2003 11:05:27 PM |
|
|
From: "Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com>
Subject: Cherenkov Radiation and the House of Blue Light
Date: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:17 AM
At his website, Dr. Baez has written as follows . . .
"A sonic boom is a shock wave which propagates from an aircraft or other
object which is going faster than sound through the air (or other medium).
In subsonic flight air is deflected smoothly around the wings. In
supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound. The result is
a sudden pressure change or shock wave which propagates away from the
aircraft in a cone at the speed of sound."
Should Professor Baez (or anyone other than Uncool Alphonso) be so kind
(letting Uncle Al out from the first) I would be pleased to see just this
much of the above statement clarified . . .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound." -- John Baez
Okay, a few questions immediately arise as to the meaning of that laudably
powerless use of the English language so typical for a mathematician, but
let's face it, different strokes is for different folks, ain't it, and if
math rather than English is your most deeply studied language (and it is),
if it is the primary means you have practiced for expressing your thoughts,
then how can you be expected to discover that an alphabetical language of
words applied with perfect precision of conceptual definition is altogether
so powerful as math for discovering and expressing scientific principle and
fact?
No, your time will not allow for it and so you must leave it to one who due
to his own area of specialization has had the time for it so that now you
lucky boys and girls may be shown this marvel of science as it unfolds right
here before your wondering eyes from the said questions which the above
quoted language has engendered. But first, once again, the statement of the
very dear, greatly revered Joanie's cousin, Dr. Baez . . .
". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead cannot
travel faster than sound."
1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"? Truly, the only thing
that cannot travel faster than sound is sound, and we all know that. But
here, according to the grammatical mathematics of that construction, it is
the "effect", the impact, a sound of wing pushing air at supersonic speed
which cannot travel faster than sound? No! It cannot travel period--forget
"faster than sound" because there is no sound faster than sound and at
supersonic speed there is no sound of wing pushed air because the air is not
capable of carrying that supersonic wave so a shock wave of a body breaking
that barrier is heard instead. Indeed! There is another sound altogether,
just one sound digitally produced, that of a body breaking the sound
barrier. But let us see again how you physicists have been construing it .
.. .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft
wings pushing the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound."
Can you guys get any more abstruse? To construe this so that the thought may
be communicated, it should have to be reworded as follows . . .
"In supersonic flight this cannot happen because the [cut "effect] (impact
and turbulence) of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead, being faster
than sound, cannot travel as a waveform through the air."
Neither the air nor any other medium, no material substance is fine enough,
aether-like enough to carry such a supersonic wave. And yet we hear the
"boom". Why?
Now of course we *know* what Dr. Baez is trying to express by that, we know
what he has in mind, as we ought to know he's on the wrong track, he along
with the entire science of physics, to think that this is just a mundane
matter of ". . . aircraft wings pushing the air ahead [which] cannot travel
faster than sound." Dr. Baez, let alone logic itself, tells us that the boom
we hear which is a ". . . sudden pressure change or shock wave which
propagates away from the aircraft in a cone at the speed of sound" is
nothing to do with the sound of impact of air on wing--that sound as a wave
cannot be carried on the air and so the shock wave is the effect of
something else far more subtle that has nothing to do with air which is
merely there to carry the shock wave boom. Now, to give some consideration
to what that "something else" is . . .
Like all physicists the good professor Baez is in far too much a hurry to
get on with showing us the what may be seen from the outside looking in by
means of geometric measurements relating to the conic form of the shock
wave. Before he has even begun to exhaust the power of the written word to
investigate the matter further he has simply, like all his brethren of the
physics cloth, just left it with that linguistic mess, moving on to the nice
clean precise stuff he can do with his numbers.
Not good enough! Measurements can describe the effects of things, but
rarely if ever do they penetrate to causes. They certainly may aid in the
quest, and greatly at that, but for science to leave unused the immensely
logical power of the written word untapped, disrespected and falsely
regarded as imprecise is folly beyond the merest hope of expression! But if
anyone should understand the power of the spoken or lyrical word, whether in
scientific discourse or in mournful lament of Child ballad, that would be
the fortunate son who is cousin to the immortal greatness that lives in the
beautiful and powerful, and world moving, Ms Joan Baez. And so what can I
say to the good professor except "Tsk, tsk, tsk"?
We move to the next question by way of a momentary reiteration of the
foregoing points . . .
2. An "effect" of what, on *what*? Would the able professor of
mathematics be speaking merely of an effect on the wing? An effect on the
air? An effect of impact of the wing on the air? Or are we really speaking
here of an effect on spacetime?
Tut-tut-tut, my boys. Just hold your horses, there. Of course you've never
heard of such a thing, or are so used to snorting at it from a sense of your
foregone "knowledge" gained from a rote memorization of the wrong idea, that
you simply refuse to so much as entertain the thought? But that is not
science, it is mere prejudice come of listening to too very few songs of Ms
Joan Baez from which some of us have learned to prepare in our heads a mind
liberated to an objectivity sufficiently clear to hear of things not easy to
consider or never heard before or formerly regarded with ears deafened by
drone of foregone dogma, all of which has made discovery, the chief aim of
science, less apt to happen, and lest we should forget . . .
3. The first thing any good man learns in life, as in science is to swallow
the pride of his unknowing, and any man incapable of that is no scientist,
nor a man worth the plutonium to blast him to Pluto. So then, let us just
turn things right-side up here and begin to inquire as to the cause, since
the effect is already known, such that any further inquiry into it is only,
as we've seen *begging the question*.
4. Who among you has the requisite objectivity of an Einstein-like humility
to eschew every fool's conceit of his own professional status to invite,
e.g. the likes of a layman such as Immanuel Velikovksy, not just once, but
many times into his study? Yes, I'm sure there are many among you who
regard yourselves better and wiser than Einstein as to any such practice of
open-mindedness like that. But now you see the enormous extent of
objectivity it takes to rate as among the greatest of scientists--so will
you fall short of that mark by writing off a fellow like me as being
unworthy of the least consideration strictly because I can't or won't work a
problem of even the most elementary algebra? Will you be so silly, still as
to think that everyone must speak the same language, or get the hell out of
the club? Okay, the greatest scientists know better than that as they do
indeed recognize that there's more than one way to skin a theoretical
Shroedinger's Cat.
What is the last sound you will hear? It is the sound of something leaving
the realm of sound, it is that impact at the sound barrier of a body
accelerating in spacetime to a critical level of Lorentz contraction in the
direction of motion which generates an electromagnetic shock expressed also
through the air as a wake, a pressure wave, as the slamming of that door to
the supersonic realm. On a grand scale, as with lightning and thunder, as
with the electromagnetic magic being generated at great speed by the
armature of a dynamo, it is all to do with motion in spacetime generating a
*shock* of spacetime contraction. You may have thought very little of it at
such low sub-luminal speeds, but just how little contraction of the very
fabric of reality itself did you really think it would take, if even your
own body should become a static generator by walking out the door of one
Reno casino to the next for the biggest blue spark shock of your life on the
stainless handle of the door to Harrah's? Let not the old explanations jade
you and occlude your vision and hence your sense of awe for that spark, my
dear Laddies.
5. But is that all? And what might be meant by the sound of one hand
thunderclapping upon the slamming of the door to the House of Blue Light?
What really is going on in the laboratory of Cherenkov in the superluminal
Blue Boom Room?
Well, I've got a vague glimmer of a hunch, but now that y'all have been
witness to this marvel of science in plain words, a little folk-song, a
little Zen, it's your turn at bat, baby, if you think you've got what it
takes. ;-)
--
JP David http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"God is the sole being who has no need to exist in order to
reign." --Charles Baudelaire, _Intimate Journals_
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
13 Sep 2003 01:21:56 AM |
|
|
Dear Seymour Grass:
"Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:bju52c$n0r3b$1@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
....
". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead
cannot
travel faster than sound."
1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"?
The air molecules, without a change in entropy.
Neither the air nor any other medium, no material substance is fine
enough,
aether-like enough to carry such a supersonic wave. And yet we hear the
"boom". Why?
We don't hear the boom until the shock wave passes our position. Nothing
is heard ahead of the shock, and echose of it can be heard behind.
....
2. An "effect" of what, on *what*?
The aircraft on the air. Increased specific energy, increased entropy,
increased speed of sound.
....
What is the last sound you will hear?
Hopefully the sound of laughter.
....
the supersonic realm. On a grand scale, as with lightning and thunder, as
with the electromagnetic magic being generated at great speed by the
armature of a dynamo, it is all to do with motion in spacetime generating
a
*shock* of spacetime contraction.
Lightning is not all that fast.
....
5. But is that all? And what might be meant by the sound of one hand
thunderclapping upon the slamming of the door to the House of Blue Light?
What really is going on in the laboratory of Cherenkov in the
superluminal
Blue Boom Room?
Well, I've got a vague glimmer of a hunch, but now that y'all have been
witness to this marvel of science in plain words, a little folk-song, a
little Zen, it's your turn at bat, baby, if you think you've got what it
takes. ;-)
You've got a vague glimmer, but not what you might think. You've spilled
your beer in the fire again.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seymour Grass" |
|
| Title: Re: In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
13 Sep 2003 05:14:29 PM |
|
|
Aha! At last, a reply . . .
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:bIy8b.54274$Qy4.46091@fed1read05...
| Dear Seymour Grass:
|
| "Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
| news:bju52c$n0r3b$1@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
| ...
| > ". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead
| cannot
| > travel faster than sound."
| >
| > 1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"?
|
| The air molecules, without a change in entropy.
Well--a change in entropy? Let's just zero in on this before moving on to
the rest, keeping in mind the overall paradigm of the thesis which is that
sonic boom is an effect of spacetime contraction having nothing to do with
impact of molecule upon molecule.
But to suggest that a molecule, any molecule cannot travel faster than sound
is just not right, lots of molecules go that fast, every molecule in the jet
is going that fast and if its going that fast then the air molecule impacted
by the molecules of the jet will be deflected at a velocity of. . . okay,
first: what about this "change in entropy"? Please enlarge on that.
Thank you.
--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"Seeking to know is only too often learning to doubt." -- Antoinette du
Ligier de la Garde Deshoulieres (1638-1694), French poet
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
13 Sep 2003 07:46:21 PM |
|
|
Dear Seymour Grass:
"Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:bk04sa$o0c4h$1@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
Aha! At last, a reply . . .
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:bIy8b.54274$Qy4.46091@fed1read05...
| Dear Seymour Grass:
|
| "Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
| news:bju52c$n0r3b$1@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
| ...
| > ". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead
| cannot
| > travel faster than sound."
| >
| > 1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"?
|
| The air molecules, without a change in entropy.
Well--a change in entropy? Let's just zero in on this before moving on
to
the rest, keeping in mind the overall paradigm of the thesis which is
that
sonic boom is an effect of spacetime contraction having nothing to do
with
impact of molecule upon molecule.
Such an assumption is contraindicated, based on experimental measurements.
Perhaps you mean relativistic particles in a medium that makes said
particles "superlumenal" in some sense? Hence your title.
But to suggest that a molecule, any molecule cannot travel faster than
sound
is just not right, lots of molecules go that fast, every molecule in the
jet
is going that fast and if its going that fast then the air molecule
impacted
by the molecules of the jet will be deflected at a velocity of. . . okay,
first: what about this "change in entropy"? Please enlarge on that.
Entropy, as expressed in thermodynamic terms, is proportional to
temperature. You are no doubt aware of the kinetic theory of gases.
Increase the temperature, say by application of a shock wave, and
temperature is increased. Since the molecules are moving faster, so is the
speed of sound higher (but damping of sound is increased as well). Also,
the shock wave is a pressure wave. So increasing pressure *also* increases
the speed of sound. Net result, the medium draws energy from the aircraft,
and uses this energy to change the local speed of sound. This allows the
molecules to get out of the way of the aircraft *and* the other molecules.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seymour Grass" |
|
| Title: Re: In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
14 Sep 2003 10:34:11 PM |
|
|
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:bIy8b.54274$Qy4.46091@fed1read05...
| Dear Seymour Grass:
|
| "Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
| news:bju52c$n0r3b$1@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
| ...
| > ". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead
| cannot
| > travel faster than sound."
| >
| > 1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"?
|
| The air molecules, without a change in entropy.
Well--a change in entropy? Let's just zero in on that before moving on to
the rest. Do please enlighten: what's that got to do with it?
--
John http://jpdavid.freewebspace.com/
http://www.virtualtourist.com/m/520b8/
"Seeking to know is only too often learning to doubt." -- Antoinette du
Ligier de la Garde Deshoulieres (1638-1694), French poet
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: In the House of Blue Cherenkov Radiation |
14 Sep 2003 11:43:46 PM |
|
|
Dear Seymour Grass:
"Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
news:bk3bvo$ooque$1@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:bIy8b.54274$Qy4.46091@fed1read05...
| Dear Seymour Grass:
|
| "Seymour Grass" <JPDM@VirtualTourist.com> wrote in message
| news:bju52c$n0r3b$1@ID-167346.news.uni-berlin.de...
| ...
| > ". . . because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing the air ahead
| cannot
| > travel faster than sound."
| >
| > 1. Exactly *what* "cannot travel faster than sound"?
|
| The air molecules, without a change in entropy.
Well--a change in entropy? Let's just zero in on that before moving on
to
the rest. Do please enlighten: what's that got to do with it?
The internal energy of a given "chunk" of air has increased. Increasing
the entropy allows/requires the air molecules in that "chunk" to move
faster, altering the speed of sound.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
