Is nonlinear acoustics in mainstream physics?

[Squizzie]

C'mon. You ask about a real world event and then try to apply non real-world constraints? What are you doing here? What is your goal? What is the real question? You're getting truly spectacular instruction but you seem intent to play games with it instead of learning what they are trying to tell you. Please make your line of questioning make sense. Rapidly.

When I read the Forum Rules, I was encouraged by its Mission Statement and Guidelines, that it would be a forum in which topics could be discussed in a scholarly manner.
I am aware that members have been warned, penalised and even banned from the forum for contravening the "Non-mainstream Theories" guidelines.
I do not wish to suffer a similar fate, and so I started this thread to determine whether or not "nonlinear acoustics" falls under the category of a "Mainstream Theory".
In the process, I acknowledge that I've veered off course from my original intention by responding to comments that were somewhat unrelated to my initial query.
So, to answer your question "what is your goal?" may I refer you to the title of the thread: "Is nonlinear acoustics in mainstream physics?", and the TL;DR Summary where I state "Looking for a physics text on sound or wave theory, explaining the circumstances where frequency and wavelength are not linearly proportional."

 

[russ_watters]

...I started this thread to determine whether or not "nonlinear acoustics" falls under the category of a "Mainstream Theory"....

So, to answer your question "what is your goal?" may I refer you to the title of the thread: "Is nonlinear acoustics in mainstream physics?"

The answer you were given to that question, obviously and simply, is "yes". And as a bonus you were given a bunch of sources and information to help you learn about it and an explanation of why what you've tried hasn't found that answer.

So, is that it? Do you accept this answer and are we finished?

 

[Squizzie]

The answer you were given to that question, obviously and simply, is "yes".
So, is that it? Do you accept this answer and are we finished?

No, not at all, but since, by identifying the subject as a "Mainstream Theory", you have unilaterally declared further discussion unacceptable, I will not risk the ire of the Forum by discussing it further.

I am however deeply disappointed that a forum with such lofty ideals such as yours, has descended to accepting references from Wikipedia and commercial, non-peer-reviewed commercial publications such as Springer as "Acceptable Sources"

 

[renormalize]

I am however deeply disappointed that a forum with such lofty ideals such as yours, has descended to accepting references from Wikipedia and commercial, non-peer-reviewed commercial publications such as Springer as "Acceptable Sources"

Can you cite an example of a non-commercially published, peer-reviewed publication that you find acceptable?

 

[Squizzie]

Whereas standard acoustic textbooks may dedicate a limited space to nonlinear waves, there are whole books treating only nonlinear effects.

Apart from the obscure reference in Feynman I quoted in the introduction of this thread, I have been unable to find any physics textbook with any reference at all. Maybe you can oblige with a reference?

 

[renormalize]

Apart from the obscure reference in Feynman I quoted in the introduction of this thread, I have been unable to find any physics textbook with any reference at all. Maybe you can oblige with a reference?

But most all physics textbooks are published commercially to make a profit and written by academic experts but not necessarily peer reviewed. How do we know you won't simply reject and ignore any reference we propose, as you are so often prone to do?

 

[Frabjous]

I am adding the OP to my ignore list. I would suggest other PF members do the same.

 

[russ_watters]

No, not at all, but since, by identifying the subject as a "Mainstream Theory", you have unilaterally declared further discussion unacceptable, I will not risk the ire of the Forum by discussing it further.

In other words, you reject the idea that there's such a thing as non-linear acoustics in mainstream science and were hoping to discuss your rejection of it. Clearly it does exist so yes, this line of discussion is a no-go on on PF. Thanks for your compliance with the rules.

I am however deeply disappointed that a forum with such lofty ideals such as yours, has descended to accepting references from Wikipedia and commercial, non-peer-reviewed commercial publications such as Springer as "Acceptable Sources"

Apart from the obscure reference in Feynman I quoted in the introduction of this thread, I have been unable to find any physics textbook with any reference at all. Maybe you can oblige with a reference?

That makes no sense. The first reference YOU WERE GIVEN was a textbook and the second was a peer-reviewed, published paper (and so I didn't check any of the others). The only viable explanation for your incredulity is that you didn't even look at any of the references you were given because you don't actually want to see them. You can't win an argument - much less learn anything - by closing your eyes and holding your hands over your ears and pretending the evidence doesn't exist. You're deeply disappointed? C'mon.

This thread is closed. Do not restart this nonsense again.