Acoustic Waves

[meriam04]

Please, in physics field, what does it mean : acoustic waves on a crystal lattice?

[Dubbelosix]

That is just a sound wave traversing a crystal lattice.

[ralfcis]

There's no google where you're from?

[Vmedvil2]

There is nothing special about sound waves traveling through a crystal just a different velocity based on density of the crystals.

Edited June 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

And this is what a gravitational wave is, a type of acoustic wave that is traveling the medium, which explains how the Sagnac effect shows a discrepancy of that to the speed of light when traveling close by a gravitational field. The effect of this aether has been significant enough, that we have detected such things.

Edited June 26, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[ralfcis]

"Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. ... The speed of light is still constant.Jun 14, 2012 "

 

 

From google. Are you saying c is affected by gravity?

[Dubbelosix]

Wrong, it very well known that light is affected by gravity - in fact, the absurdity of modern physics means that a photon can actually approach zero speeds, this is a bigger problem than the idea that the speed of light [is in fact variable inside of gravitational fields]. The aether is special enough and even more fundamental than that which travels through it.

 

Besides, I have already explained, we have detected the Sagnac delay time for photons showing a real thickness to spacetime, secondly, we have detected that the thickness affects gravitational waves enough to detect they move slower than even photons. A real consequence of the gravitational aether is that light can only approach zero speeds, but never reach it - this means light can escape black holes and solves the information paradox... But I don't expect you to understand any of that. When you get bored in one thread because no one entertains you, you go into some other post looking for attention. This will be my only post with you on such matters, because again, I am not doing these swings and roundabouts with trolls. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[ralfcis]

So you're saying google is wrong then.

[Dubbelosix]

Now, the strange thing is, you can have it either way, you can indeed argue a photon always travels at the speed of light, but I would tend to think it doesn't, for the sake of other readers here. Unless we expect sound always travels at the speed of sound ect. A wave moving through a medium requires an index refraction or in the aether model, it arises as a type of dragging force which explains why mass has inertia. The problem of whether light always travels at light speed, really should be left to an observer to determine, but on face value, I am not too quick to believe this since it does slow down when gravity is present, just as much a sound wave will move through a crystal lattice (vibrating as phonons through a material)> 

[Dubbelosix]

So you're saying google is wrong then.

 

 

Google isn't always right and certainly a lot of mainstream physics is questionable. I thought this would have sunk in by now?

[ralfcis]

No, no, I have always said I believe everything on google and especially wiki. 

[Vmedvil2]

Wikipedia is actually counted as a non creditable source for college level writing and so is google unless there is a article to something dealing with a college or intuition, so saying everything on google is correct is wrong, in any case, the people of this forum usually have degree which makes them more creditable than google or the wiki which is wrote by novices. You could actually site me or Dubbel and several others on this forum and have a better creditable source than google or wiki being that we are actually scientist with degrees. I once sited my teacher in physics whom had a master's degree in physics and the teacher who was a MLA english teacher say that it was a good source to cite experts. Me personally you cannot site me for Physics as much as Biochemistry being that I have a higher degree in biochemistry than biophysics. You could theoretically cite all my biochemistry works as equal to published papers as I am a expert in the subject just like dubbel and sanctus for physics or even Exchemist for chemistry, which would still be better than sourcing from google or wiki.

Edited June 26, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Oh I get it, you're being sarcastic like I was being sarcastic. Ya had me goin there.

[Vmedvil2]

Oh I get it, you're being sarcastic like I was being sarcastic. Ya had me goin there.

 

That's what you think...... read this http://www.easybib.com/guides/citation-guides/how-do-i-cite-a/personal-interview/

 

You can quote me on this but personally, we can actually be cited as experts the ones with degrees here, if you interview us,Shocking!

Edited June 27, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Oh so a degree in one thing means you are an expert in all things except maybe . . logic?

[Vmedvil2]

Oh so a degree in one thing means you are an expert in all things except maybe . . logic?

 

Well, a degree shows a level of expertise in college society for a subject so yes not in everything but certain areas.

[Dubbelosix]

No, no, I have always said I believe everything on google and especially wiki. 

 

You cannot trust everything on google, you can't trust everything on wiki, the only way you can do that is with some kind of understanding on the subject you are speaking about. Thirdly, you can't even trust everything in so-called mainstream physics because the ''scientific way'' has been abused to mean something else.