"Radio waves, on the other hand, are generated by oscilating electric fields, and radiowaves do themselves carry an electric field as well as a current field."
I've personally generated radio waves using oscillating electric fields and detected them by the electric field that they delivered to a wire. EMF, meet LeGrande. LeGrande, meet Electro Magnetic Fields. Please get acquainted. It'll make things easier.
You are basically using circular logic by saying that oscillating electric fields create radio waves and radio waves carry an electric field (or in other words radio waves create the field).
You try it! See if they don't do the same thing for you! measure the voltage with a high-frequency capable volt meter on a transmitting radio antenna, there will be voltage. If you hold up a wire a hundred feet away and connect up the same volt meter, there will be voltage at the same frequency! It doesn't matter whether air or space is between the transmitter and the receiver. This is not circular reasoning but rather the conservation of energy. The oscillating voltage on the transmitting antenna create radiowaves which in turn induce voltage and/or current and magnetism into objects through or around which they pass. This is like basic radio 101.
An analogy here will help. Does water (the field) create waves or do waves (radio waves) create water (the field)? Waves are not the field.
Analogies don't prove a thing - they are only useful as a conceptual learning aid demonstration - and they are only useful to the degree that they are accurate.
You're confusing the medium of water with energy. Water is the medium, energy creates the waves, then the waves give back that energy when they strike something which absorbs it.
Water is a liquid with mass. Waves on or in water are kinetic energy. And this is an entirely different realm then EMF! Now using water and waves as an analogy when discussing interference patterns is just fine - because the important part of both is the phase relationship and the summing and canceling of energy. But to try and do comparisons between water as a medium and radiowaves is absurd because waves in water is the kinetic energy of the actual moving (i.e. not static) particles of mass in a real mechano-kinetic system, whereas radiowaves are not even in the very least dependent on a medium with mass!
That leads to my question. What is the field made of?
I think you might not know what the word "field" means. A field is an expanse of area. An electric field is just voltage across an area. A magnetic field is just a magnetic force across an area. A wheat field (Thanks, Fichori!!!!) is just wheat across a area. "Field" and "Medium" are two totally separate things.
Now it's kind of hard to plant wheat on nothing. But there is no reason whatsoever that you couldn't have two wires running parallel, and have voltage across them, even in a vacuum, and you would clearly have an electric field with no detectable medium. Magnetism also works inside of a vacuum. As it turns out, EM waves can also propagate inside of a vacuum - but they still carry energy and are detectable - so I don't see your problem.
Here is your answer. "While I may not be able to tell you what kind of fabric holds together a radiowave", the reason you can't tell me what the fabric is is because the fabric (field) doesn't exist, it is a theoretical construct.
I agree that the fabric doesn't exist - or at least it's it hasn't been demonstrated to exist. I just used the phrase "fabric" because that looked like what you were implying.
But if I understand correctly, you're saying that since an electric field can exist in vacuum, which is nothing, then an electric field does not exist...? But you see, the electric field does exist, even in a vacuum -- because as soon as you turn an electron loose in it, the electron will go racing towards the positive side.
Hence my statement, waves of nothing.
This statement seems absurd to me. Even if radio waves travel through nothing that does not make the waves themselves nothing. Neither does the fact that we use a theoretical construct to describe something mean that whatever we are describing does not exist.
Waves are at least energy (or they contain energy). Are you saying that energy is nothing? Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as waves of energy? I'm here to tell you so!
I'm coming to the conclusion that one of two things are happening here. My conclusion is that either you know that you're wrong and you're just trying to filibuster me and use up my time till I go away, or that you have no knowledge of the area of science we're discussing, and aren't honest enough to say so. I suspect the latter, because you heretofore refuse to indicate your experience with physics and the arguments you make aren't coherent or sensical and if you knew how bizarre they were you'd know that most people wouldn't buy them for a second. And it's not that I'm extra smart to be sure - I don't even have a GED or better. It shouldn't be at all hard for a real scientist to know more then I!
By all means tell me if I'm wrong - but I think it's one of those two.
You're a social studies teacher for the third grade, aren't you? [Ultra wide grin, constructed of a hypothetical construct]
-Jesse
Tesla did this a long time ago : )
It doesn't matter whether air or space is between the transmitter and the receiver. This is not circular reasoning but rather the conservation of energy. The oscillating voltage on the transmitting antenna create radiowaves which in turn induce voltage and/or current and magnetism into objects through or around which they pass. This is like basic radio 101.
Who is disagreeing with you?
But to try and do comparisons between water as a medium and radiowaves is absurd because waves in water is the kinetic energy of the actual moving (i.e. not static) particles of mass in a real mechano-kinetic system, whereas radiowaves are not even in the very least dependent on a medium with mass!
Are they dependent on a medium at all? If they are, what is that medium.
But if I understand correctly, you're saying that since an electric field can exist in vacuum, which is nothing, then an electric field does not exist...? But you see, the electric field does exist, even in a vacuum -- because as soon as you turn an electron loose in it, the electron will go racing towards the positive side.
What is the electric field composed of?
I agree that the fabric doesn't exist - or at least it's it hasn't been demonstrated to exist. I just used the phrase "fabric" because that looked like what you were implying.
But if I understand correctly, you're saying that since an electric field can exist in vacuum, which is nothing, then an electric field does not exist...? But you see, the electric field does exist, even in a vacuum -- because as soon as you turn an electron loose in it, the electron will go racing towards the positive side.
What is the electric field? : ) You are simply describing an effect that you believe takes place in a physical field. Let me help you out here, what is a gravitational field? How does it work? And before you give me a hard time about asking leading questions, it is the best way I know to get you to understand the concept.
Waves are at least energy (or they contain energy). Are you saying that energy is nothing? Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as waves of energy? I'm here to tell you so!
Yes, Waves have energy but they are not energy. You are starting to head into a more interesting topic : )
I'm coming to the conclusion that one of two things are happening here. My conclusion is that either you know that you're wrong and you're just trying to filibuster me and use up my time till I go away, or that you have no knowledge of the area of science we're discussing, and aren't honest enough to say so. I suspect the latter, because you heretofore refuse to indicate your experience with physics and the arguments you make aren't coherent or sensical and if you knew how bizarre they were you'd know that most people wouldn't buy them for a second. And it's not that I'm extra smart to be sure - I don't even have a GED or better. It shouldn't be at all hard for a real scientist to know more then I!
I agree, this is probably a waste of time. May I suggest that you study, "The Feynman Lectures on Physics?" and "The New Quantum Universe," by Hey and Walters. After you wade through those four volumes, you will be able to determine for yourself if I am a Third Grade Social Studies Teacher : ) Do they teach social studies in grade school?
That's a good point. In mulling over LeGrande's last half-dozen or so posts, it seems to me that he believes in the ether theory of light, but with the added twist that the ether does not exist. Hence, waves of nothing.