A Universe from Nothing?

[YmirGF]

At first, you were calling it, "em energy", instead of "em wave" or "EM radiation".

Then you began arguing that "radiation" is the same "energy". As polymath have pointed out, the differences between radiation and energy.

Polymath also gave you examples where there radiation that doesn't require EM. Such as alpha and beta radiation, and sound radiating through air pressures.

Then more recently, you have been calling "EM wave energy". That's also not the correct terminology. The correct terms are still "EM radiation" or "EM waves" for any types of EM radiation (eg of types being gamma ray, microwave, x-ray, radio waves, visible light, ultraviolet and infrared).

Astronomers and space agencies (NASA or ESA) also used EM radiation or EM waves, not your "EM energy" or "EM wave energy".

I don't work with radars, but as having studied and worked with computer networks (which include microwave satellite dishes or wi-fi technology), I still used the correct physics terminology, like the physicists used.

Don't take on so, my friend. Your English is perfectly fine. I've never had any problem, whatsoever, discerning both what you were saying and what you are meaning in the 15 years I've known you.

 

[gnostic]

To polymath:

I would never call myself a physicist or even scientist. After high school, I have studied civil engineering, so I do require to know physics, but not about electromagnetism.

When I was in mid-30s, I chose to change my career, and began studying computer science. Here, is where most of my knowledge in electrical, electronics and electromagnetism come from.

All the physics that I have learned, are applied science, those that are relevant to the courses I do.

So I view myself more of "engineer" than a scientist or physicist. But still I preferred to use the correct physics terms, as I was taught in two different courses, and in those textbooks I still have.

That's to give some background on my education and work history.

 

[gnostic]

Don't take on so, my friend. Your English is perfectly fine. I've never had any problem, whatsoever, discerning both what you were saying and what you are meaning in the 15 years I've known you.

Thanks, YmirGF.

 

[gnostic]

Don't take on so, my friend. Your English is perfectly fine. I've never had any problem, whatsoever, discerning both what you were saying and what you are meaning in the 15 years I've known you.

Sometimes, F2C, with you and Arizona, feel like it was just yesterday, but at other times, it feels like it was a lifetime away.

Yep, time is "relative", in more ways than one.

 

[Polymath257]

Out of interest, where is it you claim have used the term 'energy wave'? I would normally have used the term em energy, or em waves, em energy. or em radiated energy.

Well this whole discussion started around post #3289 when we started discussing whether energy is 'tangible'. You gave EM energy as a type of energy that is 'tangible' and both gnostic and I challenged that. In particular, it is the *photons* and not the energy that is directly detected by the eyes (which is what I assume you mean by the word 'tangible').

I presume your proficiency in mathematics is much better than your English. I asked "If I use the term, em waves, do you also think I mean that em is the wave?" and your answer was "Yes". Err..no....em is not the same thing as a wave, they are two different aspects of the phenomenal meaning, Same thing for say 'water wave', water is not a wave, else it would be ok when you are thirsty to have a drink of wave.

The wave in an EM wave us the oscillation of the E&M fields. Because of my familiarity with them, I *would* assume that it was a wave of EM fields.

Correct, radio in this case is used as an adjective, how could you not see the principle in em wave?

Again, what you *said* above is 'radio wave frequency". The main noun here is 'frequency'. The main modifier is 'radio'. The noun 'wave' is redundant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, that will be news.

Ben, it is not so much offending people, but if you are going to speak of physics, you should use the correct terminology as used in physics, and not something that you make up for yourself.

You keep telling me that my English spelling and grammar are poor. I am doing as best as I can, but I have never been good at proof-reading, especially with my own writings. I do the best as I can, but I know that it is not good enough for you.

But if you want me to put efforts, why do you think should be exempted for putting some efforts in using the correct physics terminology, whenever physics come up?

I have tried to the same with scriptures. Whenever I am talking to or writing to Christians, I would often use Christian ways of thinking or talking. I do use the words like Old Testament or the Pentateuch, Devil, fallen angels, etc.

But conversing or writing to Jews, I will often recognise that their scriptures are called Tanakh and Torah, and for them there are no such thing as Old Testament. Similarly, they don't believe in the Christian Devil, or fallen angels, etc.

But since topics are universal, keeping the convention of right terminology are made difficult because Christians and Jews used the same "Hebrew Scriptures", which is what I used sometimes, because I interacting with both.

Just as different religion have their own sets of terminology, so does in law, physics, biology, art, architecture, engineering, computers, etc.

Words can have may have several or many, and we all should the right terms for matter of contexts.

So yes, I think you should terms in physics, regardless if you are working as an academician, experimental or theoretical physicist or engineer.

Gnostic, you would not understand because you have not worked in the field of radio communications, the language and terminology I use is understood by those who have. Being a student of the theory is not the same being able to being proficient in actual management of the technologies based on the theory you are studying. Could you manage a satellite communication station with a staff of engineers, technicians, etc. Could you represent a nation at international satellite communication conferences dealing with the allocation of bandwidths, frequencies, power levels, interfacing TV, telephone, and data transmissions between other nation's satellite stations, etc? That was my job.

I know you do your best with your present proficiency of English, but you frequently respond to my posts with irrelevant comments that indicate you did not understand my point.

It works both ways, why should you as a student of the theory be exempted from making an effort to understand the language of those with practical knowledge in the real world's use of technologies based on the theory.

And then you go off on an irrelevant discussion of Hebrews and Christians, torah, old Testament, etc.. I know the point you are trying to make, but you are way too verbose, try and be concise and to the point.

Technical field people are not working with theorists and academicians, they work with other technical trained staff, they have already long ago learned the theory and have put it to use day in and day out. Polymaths, LOM, and yourself would not be able to install, test, and maintain a satellite communication system, you would need to develop a practical knowledge of how it works in the real world, not just the theory of the classroom.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well this whole discussion started around post #3289 when we started discussing whether energy is 'tangible'. You gave EM energy as a type of energy that is 'tangible' and both gnostic and I challenged that. In particular, it is the *photons* and not the energy that is directly detected by the eyes (which is what I assume you mean by the word 'tangible').

The wave in an EM wave us the oscillation of the E&M fields. Because of my familiarity with them, I *would* assume that it was a wave of EM fields.

Again, what you *said* above is 'radio wave frequency". The main noun here is 'frequency'. The main modifier is 'radio'. The noun 'wave' is redundant.

http:// #3289 Polymath257, Apr 27, 2017
#3289


No where did you show that I used the term 'energy wave', you apparently made it up as a strawman argument. That's why I keep calling you out, it is deceitful.

You say it is photons, not the energy that is detected by the eye, so two things, first, is not energy an aspect of a photon, and second, yes, the detection by the eye makes it a tangible event?

But the question was not about your assumptions, it was clearly whether 'electromagnetic' was the same thing as a 'wave'. You said it was, and it isn't.

It does not matter, for we both agree the answer to the question was no!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

At first, you were calling it, "em energy", instead of "em wave" or "EM radiation".

Then you began arguing that "radiation" is the same "energy". As polymath have pointed out, the differences between radiation and energy.

Polymath also gave you examples where there radiation that doesn't require EM. Such as alpha and beta radiation, and sound radiating through air pressures.

Then more recently, you have been calling "EM wave energy". That's also not the correct terminology. The correct terms are still "EM radiation" or "EM waves" for any types of EM radiation (eg of types being gamma ray, microwave, x-ray, radio waves, visible light, ultraviolet and infrared).

Astronomers and space agencies (NASA or ESA) also used EM radiation or EM waves, not your "EM energy" or "EM wave energy".

I don't work with radars, but as having studied and worked with computer networks (which include microwave satellite dishes or wi-fi technology), I still used the correct physics terminology, like the physicists used.

So you admit that I never used the term 'energy wave' as you claimed, just like polymaths, you create strawman arguments in an attempt at deceit....bad form. And you wonder why I have a solidifying impression you are not sincere in your search for real understanding.

There is no radiation without energy, that is my position, where did I say that the meaning of radiation is the same meaning as energy? Please quote my words and provide the context?

Gnostic, so explain to me what is incorrect about the term 'em wave energy'. I would not know any of my contemporaries who would not understand the term? How about water wave energy, is that also invalid?

Astronomers do not get to decide what language other disciplines use in the field of radio, they do not use many terms used in other fields. But I bet you if I used the term em wave energy in a discussion with them, they would understand.

So what has been your radio communication experience in the work place? I see you claim you are an engineer, what is your degree and the extent of your experience involving radio transmission and reception systems?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you, @LegionOnomaMoi it's so rare to find people who actually know something about the topic they are discussing. Kudos...

So explain to me why you think em waves do not exist as em energy?

 

[YmirGF]

So explain to me why you think em waves do not exist as em energy?

Why? Others, who are far more capable, have already tried to expand your understanding. Would my esteemed opinion make the slightest difference to you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why? Others, who are far more capable, have already tried to expand your understanding. Would my esteemed opinion make the slightest difference to you?

With due respect, I was just teasing you good heartedly, after all, you know more about shoe making than I do, how could you possibly know my field of expertise better?

 

[YmirGF]

With due respect, I was just teasing you good heartedly, after all, you know more about shoe making than I do, how could you possibly know my field of expertise better?

But, Bend, you have not shown any expertise in the field. Quite the opposite, really.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But, Bend, you have not shown any expertise in the field. Quite the opposite, really.

Then you have not been following, I let it be known some of my positions and relevant technical expertise in a working career in the field in some of the recent posts.

 

[Polymath257]

So you admit that I never used the term 'energy wave' as you claimed, just like polymaths, you create strawman arguments in an attempt at deceit....bad form. And you wonder why I have a solidifying impression you are not sincere in your search for real understanding.

There is no radiation without energy, that is my position, where did I say that the meaning of radiation is the same meaning as energy? Please quote my words and provide the context?

Gnostic, so explain to me what is incorrect about the term 'em wave energy'. I would not know any of my contemporaries who would not understand the term? How about water wave energy, is that also invalid?

Astronomers do not get to decide what language other disciplines use in the field of radio, they do not use many terms used in other fields. But I bet you if I used the term em wave energy in a discussion with them, they would understand.

So what has been your radio communication experience in the work place? I see you claim you are an engineer, what is your degree and the extent of your experience involving radio transmission and reception systems?

You use the term 'em energy wave'. What, precisely does that mean?

One interpretation is that it means an 'energy wave' of the 'em' type. This is the default reading in English. It is also wrong. It is not an 'energy wave'.

The other interpretation, which is not a natural English construction, is that it is an 'em wave' with 'energy' modifying that. At least in this interpretation, you are correct that it is an 'em wave', but the word 'energy' is then redundant.

The correct terminology would simply be 'em wave'.

Yes, an astronomer would understand what you mean when you say 'em wave energy' or even 'em energy wave', but they would certainly find it a very strange construct. The first is slightly more accurate because it implies 'energy' of the particular type 'em wave'. But even there, the more correct and natural construct would just be 'em energy'.

 

[Polymath257]

So explain to me why you think em waves do not exist as em energy?

They do not eist *as energy*. They exist as *em fields*. There is a difference!

 

[Polymath257]

You say it is photons, not the energy that is detected by the eye, so two things, first, is not energy an aspect of a photon, and second, yes, the detection by the eye makes it a tangible event?

I think you need to look up the definition of the word 'tangible' also. it means to be perceptible through the sense of *touch*.

Alternate definitions are that is be 'substantially real' or being capable of being realized by the mind.

Which one are you using?

But the question was not about your assumptions, it was clearly whether 'electromagnetic' was the same thing as a 'wave'. You said it was, and it isn't.

If I see 'em wave', I understand it is a wave in the em fields. There are also static em fields which are not waves. There are also other types of waves, like sound.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You use the term 'em energy wave'. What, precisely does that mean?

One interpretation is that it means an 'energy wave' of the 'em' type. This is the default reading in English. It is also wrong. It is not an 'energy wave'.

The other interpretation, which is not a natural English construction, is that it is an 'em wave' with 'energy' modifying that. At least in this interpretation, you are correct that it is an 'em wave', but the word 'energy' is then redundant.

The correct terminology would simply be 'em wave'.

Yes, an astronomer would understand what you mean when you say 'em wave energy' or even 'em energy wave', but they would certainly find it a very strange construct. The first is slightly more accurate because it implies 'energy' of the particular type 'em wave'. But even there, the more correct and natural construct would just be 'em energy'.

I am pleased that you are able to work out what it means, it matters not to me if you prefer to use other terms because of the 'canon' of the dogmatic church of science you belongs to says it constitutes some form of heresy, I am nondenominational when it comes to both religion and science.

Btw, time is not tangible in the here and now...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They do not exist *as energy*. They exist as *em fields*. There is a difference!

Em waves are not the same thing as em fields, em waves exist in em fields.

There are no em waves without energy, so em energy exists as an aspect of em waves, you can call it em wave energy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you need to look up the definition of the word 'tangible' also. it means to be perceptible through the sense of *touch*.

Alternate definitions are that is be 'substantially real' or being capable of being realized by the mind.

Which one are you using?


If I see 'em wave', I understand it is a wave in the em fields. There are also static em fields which are not waves. There are also other types of waves, like sound.

You mean you have been debating me on the 'tangibility' of time for pages and pages of this thread and you do not even know the meaning intended? Bad form. It means in the context I have been are using the word, 'perceptible to the senses', ie, touch, taste, smell, hear, and see.

I know, but the word was not em wave, just em. Never mind, I know you understand the subject.

Back to the tangibility of the reality represented by the concept of time, it does not exist, the only tangibility of observing something for some duration (which duration is conceived as time) is that of seeing what in front of the eyes, there is not entity known as time that can be seen. It is merely the measurement of the duration using calibrated cyclic movement, that is called time, an abstraction.

 

[Polymath257]

Em waves are not the same thing as em fields, em waves exist in em fields.

There are no em waves without energy, so em energy exists as an aspect of em waves, you can call it em wave energy.

E&M waves are changing E&M fields. That is all.

There are no E&M fields without energy either.