Quantity of waves over a dist calculated by Dist+Vol, negating Speed? Kill me..

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01 January 2013   #31
Quote: Manners waste time and restrict the flow of information...


Gotta say... I can't disagree with this more. Being caustic is not a shortcut to convince others of your ideas. Instead it just makes them stop listening. Civil dialogue requires patience and a respect for the point of view of the other, even if they are wrong. Watch Shields and Brooks on the PBS newhour (fridays). They both have very different political views, but are able to dialogue with mutual respect and this lets them tease out bits of truth much faster than adversarial shows where everyone yells their point of view on top of each other.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #32
Thread automatically closed

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
__________________
CGTalk Policy/Legalities
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #33
Originally Posted by cojam: I can see what your saying, but grahamef that's an analogy, not a mathematical proof. same for the equation you state that is derived from a mathematical proof defined elsewhere. As said by the op, he wanted proof, and the only way for this IS to understand the math. There is rigor in mathematics for this very reason, otherwise everyone would be selling analogies, those are called hypothesis. While a starting place they not the end. Otherwise we'd all still think the world is flat, wouldn't we.


I didn't see the OP asking for rigorous proof, just the basic maths involved. In any case, you can't really prove anything about physical phenomena. A formal mathematical proof would need to presume some axioms, and the physical world in which water waves exist has no axioms -- instead it has theories derived from experiment and observation. Any formal proof would get stuck at the point where you need to prove that real-world water waves obey that particular kind of math. Case in point: Newtonian versus Einsteinian physics.

In fact that formula doesn't even derive from a proof. It's just a restatement of the definition of velocity as change in distance divided by change in time, with wavelength replacing distance and frequency replacing 1/time.

The rest of my post was not meant as an analogy, but an example to illustrate the point more intuitively. What it really boils down to is: If people are stepping onto a moving sidewalk at, say, 10 per minute, then they can't be stepping off the other end at 11 per minute -- after a short time, there'd be a negative number of people on the sidewalk.
 
Old 01 January 2013   #34
EDIT: double post

Last edited by grahamef : 01 January 2013 at 04:51 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.