You've done it again, there I was sitting at my computer working on risk assessments, got fed up so Mags made me a cup of tea and I watched this video. So now every time I look into my cup I'm thinking of standing waves, interference patterns and all the other wave motions going on. My only option now is to see if this applies to a glass of port. Thanks for the video. Tony
Thanks Tony. Yes, indeed you will spot it everywhere now! You need to experiment with different viscosities and mass per unit volume liquids - basically alcohol content, which will probably make you 'alcohol content'!
Good about electrons. But as a retired physics and earth science teacher, who built seismographs for home and my classroom,, there is an important point. You said when the table shakes, a wave starts out from the center. But the center of the liquid has no connection with the table. The table shakes the plastic bottle. Compression waves would then spread the news to the center of the water. That is why the foundations of a building are so important. The ground shakes the foundation back and forth, and if the house is not bolted down, it sits still while the foundation moves away. If bolted, the foundation shakes the first floor walls at their base. A "weak first story" will collapse.
Thanks so much - I don't know what I was thinking! You are of course right. A force has to be imparted to the water to cause the water to displace. I am not sure I agree with you that it is a 'compression wave'. I guess the earth science analogy would be an S-Wave due to the fluid incompressibility but I am really grateful for your correction and thanks for watching.
@@AnthonyFrancisJones Yes, you are right. Water waves may start as a compression, but they transfer by a rotary motion. S waves are are twisting rocks back and forth, and like a Slinky spring lying on the floor, especially from horizontal strike-slip faults like San Andreas. The surface waves called "Love waves" are the like your water, and can be seen as rippled pavement, and tilting big buildings or bridge columns, as in the collapse of the highways east of San Francisco. I grew up just east of there, and drove on that highway in the 50-60s. They had just finished reinforcing the pavement so it would not crack apart, but that meant the weak columns had to take all the movement. --- I like your talk about the orbitals.
Excellent - thanks for that! I really enjoy reading and replying to comments - many of which are better than the video in question! It is great when people share their personal observations and experiences too! By the way you might have seen my video on Slinky Waves demonstrating both Longitudinal (compression) and Transverse (shake) waves. th-cam.com/video/pm0_eLBXJR4/w-d-xo.html
Ah, I had a moment today when I realised where my error had come from! When I used to demonstrate circular ripples in the lab I always used a pencil or dipper and the waves travelled outwards and then reflected back. Now I see why I was so focused on that approach which is, of course, not the right one in this case! Physics is the same in the end - it's just where you feed the energy in that changes! Well spotted by the way!
@@AnthonyFrancisJones Good discussion. But physics is not the same in the end. That is like saying we can bolt the roof to the house, and then we don't have to bolt the house to the foundation. --- Physics has become very sloppy in the last century. It brags about precision measurement, them ignores the meaning of the measurements.--- The M-M experiment did not prove there was no either, just a null result. Fitzgerald had the idea of the shortening, and Lorentz to make the shortening work. In effect, it defined the existence of the aether, as Einstein admitted the possibility of an aether in 1920 (Wiki: Luminiferous aether). He said it could not have physical properties, yet what about permeability, permittivity, vacuum energy, Casmir Effect, Lambda Effect, particle-wave duality (which is controversial only in the blindness of physicists. Physicists should be renamed "fishicists" who deny the existence of water.) --- Another is "conventional current". Franklin used the term positive for electricity flowing down the kite string, but 150 years later it was discovered to be negative electrons. Conventional Current really describes positive ions, which, duh, are the copper atoms. Using conventional current is stupid physics, saying the copper wire in my amateur radio antenna is being sucked into the transmitter in one wire, and pushed out the other wire, 14 Million times a second. (20m band) But the math works, so physicists don't give a damn about reality. I saw how conventional current confused regular people in a course to get a HAM license, and almost all failed the test. And so on. I am writing a book on astronomy and physics with some new ideas, hopefully finished in a year. Sorry to be critical, but you are touching on deep aspects of physics, and I needed to see your demo of circular waves. I will reference your video in my book.
My reflections led me to think of musical instruments, and how standing waves form in strings and closed pipes with nodes at the fixed or closed ends (if memory serves). Presumably something very similar to what you saw in the bottle of water happens in circular instruments like drums and gongs?
Yes, indeed, and you make the excellent point that if you understand some simple physics principles you can use them to explain other things that you see around you. You are right about the musical instruments and drums too. Have you seen my video on standing waves on strings? th-cam.com/video/BVa0YPp2tYY/w-d-xo.html or the one on standing waves in pipes? th-cam.com/video/o2pjdP2NVI4/w-d-xo.html done with Helium too is interesting! th-cam.com/video/dJtcjb0xLUE/w-d-xo.html
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
You've done it again, there I was sitting at my computer working on risk assessments, got fed up so Mags made me a cup of tea and I watched this video. So now every time I look into my cup I'm thinking of standing waves, interference patterns and all the other wave motions going on. My only option now is to see if this applies to a glass of port. Thanks for the video. Tony
Thanks Tony. Yes, indeed you will spot it everywhere now! You need to experiment with different viscosities and mass per unit volume liquids - basically alcohol content, which will probably make you 'alcohol content'!
Good about electrons. But as a retired physics and earth science teacher, who built seismographs for home and my classroom,, there is an important point. You said when the table shakes, a wave starts out from the center. But the center of the liquid has no connection with the table. The table shakes the plastic bottle. Compression waves would then spread the news to the center of the water. That is why the foundations of a building are so important. The ground shakes the foundation back and forth, and if the house is not bolted down, it sits still while the foundation moves away. If bolted, the foundation shakes the first floor walls at their base. A "weak first story" will collapse.
Thanks so much - I don't know what I was thinking! You are of course right. A force has to be imparted to the water to cause the water to displace. I am not sure I agree with you that it is a 'compression wave'. I guess the earth science analogy would be an S-Wave due to the fluid incompressibility but I am really grateful for your correction and thanks for watching.
@@AnthonyFrancisJones Yes, you are right. Water waves may start as a compression, but they transfer by a rotary motion. S waves are are twisting rocks back and forth, and like a Slinky spring lying on the floor, especially from horizontal strike-slip faults like San Andreas. The surface waves called "Love waves" are the like your water, and can be seen as rippled pavement, and tilting big buildings or bridge columns, as in the collapse of the highways east of San Francisco. I grew up just east of there, and drove on that highway in the 50-60s. They had just finished reinforcing the pavement so it would not crack apart, but that meant the weak columns had to take all the movement. --- I like your talk about the orbitals.
Excellent - thanks for that! I really enjoy reading and replying to comments - many of which are better than the video in question! It is great when people share their personal observations and experiences too! By the way you might have seen my video on Slinky Waves demonstrating both Longitudinal (compression) and Transverse (shake) waves. th-cam.com/video/pm0_eLBXJR4/w-d-xo.html
Ah, I had a moment today when I realised where my error had come from! When I used to demonstrate circular ripples in the lab I always used a pencil or dipper and the waves travelled outwards and then reflected back. Now I see why I was so focused on that approach which is, of course, not the right one in this case! Physics is the same in the end - it's just where you feed the energy in that changes! Well spotted by the way!
@@AnthonyFrancisJones Good discussion. But physics is not the same in the end. That is like saying we can bolt the roof to the house, and then we don't have to bolt the house to the foundation. ---
Physics has become very sloppy in the last century. It brags about precision measurement, them ignores the meaning of the measurements.---
The M-M experiment did not prove there was no either, just a null result. Fitzgerald had the idea of the shortening, and Lorentz to make the shortening work. In effect, it defined the existence of the aether, as Einstein admitted the possibility of an aether in 1920 (Wiki: Luminiferous aether). He said it could not have physical properties, yet what about permeability, permittivity, vacuum energy, Casmir Effect, Lambda Effect, particle-wave duality (which is controversial only in the blindness of physicists. Physicists should be renamed "fishicists" who deny the existence of water.) ---
Another is "conventional current". Franklin used the term positive for electricity flowing down the kite string, but 150 years later it was discovered to be negative electrons. Conventional Current really describes positive ions, which, duh, are the copper atoms. Using conventional current is stupid physics, saying the copper wire in my amateur radio antenna is being sucked into the transmitter in one wire, and pushed out the other wire, 14 Million times a second. (20m band) But the math works, so physicists don't give a damn about reality. I saw how conventional current confused regular people in a course to get a HAM license, and almost all failed the test.
And so on. I am writing a book on astronomy and physics with some new ideas, hopefully finished in a year.
Sorry to be critical, but you are touching on deep aspects of physics, and I needed to see your demo of circular waves. I will reference your video in my book.
My reflections led me to think of musical instruments, and how standing waves form in strings and closed pipes with nodes at the fixed or closed ends (if memory serves). Presumably something very similar to what you saw in the bottle of water happens in circular instruments like drums and gongs?
Yes, indeed, and you make the excellent point that if you understand some simple physics principles you can use them to explain other things that you see around you. You are right about the musical instruments and drums too. Have you seen my video on standing waves on strings? th-cam.com/video/BVa0YPp2tYY/w-d-xo.html or the one on standing waves in pipes? th-cam.com/video/o2pjdP2NVI4/w-d-xo.html done with Helium too is interesting! th-cam.com/video/dJtcjb0xLUE/w-d-xo.html
Oh and of course the one I did on The Quantum Washing Machine! th-cam.com/video/K0N7L2gyZjU/w-d-xo.html
@@AnthonyFrancisJones Thanks for the pointers. I see have some catching up to do!
Let me know how you get on!