| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2007 03:14:23 PM |
| Object: |
Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
According to a new book, "Kinetic Space Theory: The Solution to
Gravity and other Puzzles in Theoretical Physics" by John Palacio,
space itself is able to move. The idea of moving space follows from
the behavior of light waves. All traveling waves cause the medium
through which they travel to move. All, that is, with the single
exception of light. If light is not an exception, then space itself
must be capable of movement. And if this is so, then a number of
classic puzzles in theoretical physics apparently are solvable.
In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
but the fields are properties of space itself. An electric field
marks areas of spatial compression or rarefaction. A magnetic field is
spatial momentum.
Light waves cause space itself to oscillate. When a light wave moves
through space, space initially compresses (building an electric
field). Space then moves away from the compressed area and, as it does
so, moving space builds up spatial momentum (i.e., creates a magnetic
field). Due to this momentum (i.e., due to a collapsing magnetic
field), space continues to flow away from the area of compression even
after the area is no longer compressed, creating a spatial void (an
electric field of opposite polarity). Space then flows into the void,
refilling it and then, again due to spatial momentum, re-compresses
space to begin another wave cycle.
Light encounters impedance as it travels through space. The values of
the impedance that space presents to its compression and to its
displacement are constants. These account for the constancy and the
precise value of the speed of light. The fixed value of the impedance
that space presents to its displacement also explains why energy is
only able to transfer between any two points in the Universe
(including into the atom) in units of specific energy quanta. If
scientists choose SI units as the basis of their measurements, then
the value of energy quanta will be a multiple of the amount of charge
that moves to the atom in a period of one second or, in other words,
one electron. If, instead, that period is defined as the time
interval to complete one cycle of a wave oscillating at the resonant
frequency of free space (equal to the speed of light divided by the
permeability of free space), then the amount of transferred charge
will be a multiple of Planck's Constant h.
Kinetic Space Theory goes even further and proposes a solution for the
puzzle of gravity. Given that electric fields represent compressed
and rarefied space, the charge variations represented by "electrons"
and "protons" suggest that the atom is a spatial oscillator. As an
atom oscillates, the ripples of compressed space that are continuously
pumped out of the atom create a demand for a constant flow of spatial
current into the atom. This suggests a mechanism for gravitational
attraction: atoms consume space.
The derived model of the atom lends itself to the formation of
dipoles, quadrapoles and other combinatorial possibilities that
account for the manner in which atoms bond into molecules. The model
also suggests explanations for the periodicity of chemical reactivity,
the manner in which atoms interact with impinging radiation, and the
reason why infrared radiation (i.e., radiation that oscillates at the
resonant frequency of free space) exercises such a singular impact on
atomic and molecular states.
More information on this theory is available at www.kineticspacetheory.com
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
19 Aug 2007 04:32:39 PM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187554463.494181.323410@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
: In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
: but the fields are properties of space itself.
That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
19 Aug 2007 05:48:27 PM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187554463.494181.323410@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
: In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
: but the fields are properties of space itself.
That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
--No. In the aether theory, an invisible aether occupied space and
light moved the aether. In Kinetic Space Theory, light moves space
itself. According to Kinetic Space Theory, light moving through space
is like sound moving in the air. Sound makes the air compress and
then move and then recompress and so on and so on. Light makes space
do the same thing. In Kinetic Space Theory, light behaves just like
every other traveling wave. It moves and compresses the medium
through which it travels. The apparent obvious assumption that there
is nothing in empty space to oscillate is wrong. This misassumption
has led to a whole group of inconsistencies and paradoxes that current
science has learned to live with or simply take on faith. Kinetic
Space Theory makes these disappear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
19 Aug 2007 06:46:53 PM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187563707.885822.56020@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 19, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1187554463.494181.323410@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > : In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: > : electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
: > : but the fields are properties of space itself.
: >
: > That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
: > and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
:
: --No.
YES.
: In the aether theory, an invisible aether occupied space and
: light moved the aether. In Kinetic Space Theory, light moves space
: itself.
So now aether is called space, just as it it always has been, with
properties of permittivity and permeability.
That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
Pull the other leg, it's got Big Ben on it.
: According to Kinetic Space Theory, light moving through space
: is like sound moving in the air.
Yeah, that's exactly what the aether was.
Just another nutter that doesn't understand electromagnetics
and wanks off over space having some crazy properties, the same
idiotic properties that aether had. Whether you call it moving space
or aether, it's the same *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Planckenstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
19 Aug 2007 08:44:22 PM |
|
|
: > : In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: > : electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
: > : but the fields are properties of space itself.
How do you intend to even model such a thing mathematically ?
There is only one way to do it. Probability. Length is probabilistic. What
else is new.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
20 Aug 2007 12:17:02 AM |
|
|
On Aug 19, 4:46 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187563707.885822.56020@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 19, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:: > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: >news:1187554463.494181.323410@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > : In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: > : electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
: > : but the fields are properties of space itself.
: >
: > That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
: > and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
:
: --No.
YES.
: In the aether theory, an invisible aether occupied space and
: light moved the aether. In Kinetic Space Theory, light moves space
: itself.
So now aether is called space, just as it it always has been, with
properties of permittivity and permeability.
That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
Pull the other leg, it's got Big Ben on it.
: According to Kinetic Space Theory, light moving through space
: is like sound moving in the air.
Yeah, that's exactly what the aether was.
Just another nutter that doesn't understand electromagnetics
and wanks off over space having some crazy properties, the same
idiotic properties that aether had. Whether you call it moving space
or aether, it's the same *****.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't make any "crazy" claims about the
properties of space, like the aether had to have. It doesn't need
to. There's nothing that relies on unverifiable beliefs in the
unseen or invisible in Kinetic Space Theory. The properties that you
talk about, permittivity and permeabilty, are real measurable
properties of space. They are what capacitance and inductance are
based on. They are constants. And, the constant speed of light is
pretty closely equivalent to them. The reciprocal of the square root
of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space
equals 299863380.5 m/s compared to the accepted value of the speed of
light value of 299792458 m/s (The two values are within .0003% of one
another). Do you think that's coincidence???
Kinetic Space Theory maintains that the speed that a space wave would
require to transit space can be calculated based on the idea that the
time period t required to build electric and magnetic fields (to cycle
through compressing space and displacing space) in an area A traversed
by a wave that moves through space in a period t is equal to the
permittivity e and permeability u of the area A that the wave will
cover in that time period t. In other words,
t/A = e * u * A/t
Now, if you solve for A/t, the amount of area traversed during each
wave period, you get theequation that says that the speed of light
should equal the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the
permittivity and permeability of free space or, in other words, the
equation that leads to a value that is .0003% of the speed of light in
a vacuum.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't rely on stuff like the space-time
dilation of Relativity or the 11 or 23 unseen dimensions of string
theory. Everything it suggests relies on the observable rather than
the abstract.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
20 Aug 2007 11:11:02 AM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote
On Aug 19, 4:46 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote
: On Aug 19, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: > : electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
: > : but the fields are properties of space itself.
: >
: > That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
: > and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
:
: --No.
YES.
: In the aether theory, an invisible aether occupied space and
: light moved the aether. In Kinetic Space Theory, light moves space
: itself.
So now aether is called space, just as it it always has been, with
properties of permittivity and permeability.
That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
Pull the other leg, it's got Big Ben on it.
: According to Kinetic Space Theory, light moving through space
: is like sound moving in the air.
Yeah, that's exactly what the aether was.
Just another nutter that doesn't understand electromagnetics
and wanks off over space having some crazy properties, the same
idiotic properties that aether had. Whether you call it moving space
or aether, it's the same *****.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't make any "crazy" claims about the
properties of space, like the aether had to have. It doesn't need
to. There's nothing that relies on unverifiable beliefs in the
unseen or invisible in Kinetic Space Theory. The properties that you
talk about, permittivity and permeabilty, are real measurable
properties of space. They are what capacitance and inductance are
based on. They are constants. And, the constant speed of light is
pretty closely equivalent to them. The reciprocal of the square root
of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space
equals 299863380.5 m/s compared to the accepted value of the speed of
light value of 299792458 m/s (The two values are within .0003% of one
another). Do you think that's coincidence???
Hmm. maybe you use some wild values?
I have the following and they give just "c":
mu0 = 0.0000012566370614359172954
eps0 = 0.0000000000088541878176204
1/sqrt(mu0 * eps0) = 299792458, ie. c
Z0 = 376.7303134617706554681984004
c = 299792458.00000000000000000000
cr = 299733463.58589092518826778992
magic1 = 1.0204081632653061224489796
Kinetic Space Theory maintains that the speed that a space wave would
require to transit space can be calculated based on the idea that the
time period t required to build electric and magnetic fields (to cycle
through compressing space and displacing space) in an area A traversed
by a wave that moves through space in a period t is equal to the
permittivity e and permeability u of the area A that the wave will
cover in that time period t. In other words,
t/A = e * u * A/t
Now, if you solve for A/t, the amount of area traversed during each
wave period, you get theequation that says that the speed of light
should equal the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the
permittivity and permeability of free space or, in other words, the
equation that leads to a value that is .0003% of the speed of light in
a vacuum.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't rely on stuff like the space-time
dilation of Relativity or the 11 or 23 unseen dimensions of string
theory. Everything it suggests relies on the observable rather than
the abstract.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
20 Aug 2007 02:25:40 PM |
|
|
"qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
news:faceet$t21$1@aioe.org...
: <mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote
: > On Aug 19, 4:46 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote
: > > : On Aug 19, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > > : <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: > > : >
: > > : > : In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: > > : > : electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations
maintain,
: > > : > : but the fields are properties of space itself.
: > > : >
: > > : > That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the
closet
: > > : > and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still
garbage.
: > > :
: > > : --No.
: > >
: > > YES.
: > >
: > > : In the aether theory, an invisible aether occupied space and
: > > : light moved the aether. In Kinetic Space Theory, light moves space
: > > : itself.
: > >
: > > So now aether is called space, just as it it always has been, with
: > > properties of permittivity and permeability.
: > > That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the
closet
: > > and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
: > > Pull the other leg, it's got Big Ben on it.
: > >
: > > : According to Kinetic Space Theory, light moving through space
: > > : is like sound moving in the air.
: > >
: > > Yeah, that's exactly what the aether was.
: > > Just another nutter that doesn't understand electromagnetics
: > > and wanks off over space having some crazy properties, the same
: > > idiotic properties that aether had. Whether you call it moving space
: > > or aether, it's the same *****.
: >
: >
: > THAT'S NOT TRUE.
: >
: > Kinetic Space Theory doesn't make any "crazy" claims about the
: > properties of space, like the aether had to have. It doesn't need
: > to. There's nothing that relies on unverifiable beliefs in the
: > unseen or invisible in Kinetic Space Theory. The properties that you
: > talk about, permittivity and permeabilty, are real measurable
: > properties of space. They are what capacitance and inductance are
: > based on. They are constants. And, the constant speed of light is
: > pretty closely equivalent to them. The reciprocal of the square root
: > of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space
: > equals 299863380.5 m/s compared to the accepted value of the speed of
: > light value of 299792458 m/s (The two values are within .0003% of one
: > another). Do you think that's coincidence???
:
: Hmm. maybe you use some wild values?
: I have the following and they give just "c":
: mu0 = 0.0000012566370614359172954
: eps0 = 0.0000000000088541878176204
:
: 1/sqrt(mu0 * eps0) = 299792458, ie. c
That's bloody silly, nobody has ever measured a property
of the vacuum of space. It's pretty obviously contrived out of
aether. The velocity of light is relative to the source, as Sagnac
proves. Even Einstein said:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
so if it's c in the stationary system then that which has the properties
of permittivity and permeability (aka aether) has to be stationary also,
and would have been discovered by the Michelson and Morley
experiment.
-- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from
A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO
and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare
question it. -- Albert Einstein.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
20 Aug 2007 04:14:26 PM |
|
|
On Aug 20, 9:11 am, "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote:
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote
On Aug 19, 4:46 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote
: On Aug 19, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: > : electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations maintain,
: > : but the fields are properties of space itself.
: >
: > That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
: > and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
:
: --No.
YES.
: In the aether theory, an invisible aether occupied space and
: light moved the aether. In Kinetic Space Theory, light moves space
: itself.
So now aether is called space, just as it it always has been, with
properties of permittivity and permeability.
That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the closet
and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
Pull the other leg, it's got Big Ben on it.
: According to Kinetic Space Theory, light moving through space
: is like sound moving in the air.
Yeah, that's exactly what the aether was.
Just another nutter that doesn't understand electromagnetics
and wanks off over space having some crazy properties, the same
idiotic properties that aether had. Whether you call it moving space
or aether, it's the same *****.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't make any "crazy" claims about the
properties of space, like the aether had to have. It doesn't need
to. There's nothing that relies on unverifiable beliefs in the
unseen or invisible in Kinetic Space Theory. The properties that you
talk about, permittivity and permeabilty, are real measurable
properties of space. They are what capacitance and inductance are
based on. They are constants. And, the constant speed of light is
pretty closely equivalent to them. The reciprocal of the square root
of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space
equals 299863380.5 m/s compared to the accepted value of the speed of
light value of 299792458 m/s (The two values are within .0003% of one
another). Do you think that's coincidence???
Hmm. maybe you use some wild values?
I have the following and they give just "c":
mu0 = 0.0000012566370614359172954
eps0 = 0.0000000000088541878176204
1/sqrt(mu0 * eps0) = 299792458, ie. c
Z0 = 376.7303134617706554681984004
c = 299792458.00000000000000000000
cr = 299733463.58589092518826778992
magic1 = 1.0204081632653061224489796
Kinetic Space Theory maintains that the speed that a space wave would
require to transit space can be calculated based on the idea that the
time period t required to build electric and magnetic fields (to cycle
through compressing space and displacing space) in an area A traversed
by a wave that moves through space in a period t is equal to the
permittivity e and permeability u of the area A that the wave will
cover in that time period t. In other words,
t/A = e * u * A/t
Now, if you solve for A/t, the amount of area traversed during each
wave period, you get theequation that says that the speed of light
should equal the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the
permittivity and permeability of free space or, in other words, the
equation that leads to a value that is .0003% of the speed of light in
a vacuum.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't rely on stuff like the space-time
dilation of Relativity or the 11 or 23 unseen dimensions of string
theory. Everything it suggests relies on the observable rather than
the abstract.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That's the point!
c = 1 / (e*u)-2
c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space. The
speed of light is a constant because the permittivity and permeability
of space are constants. Their values impede the build up of electric
and magnetic fields or, in the parlance of Kinetic Space Theory, they
are the values that reflect just how much space resists being
compressed or displaced. The relationship of the speed of light to
the permittivity and permeability of space is best explained if space
itself is moving! This means light moves through space just like
every other traveling wave known to science. It moves the medium
through which it travels. And so, empty space is kinetic --- it is
capable of movement!
Quoting Kinetic Space Theory: The time t relevant to developing
electric and magnetic fields at every point in the area A traversed by
a space wave is dependent upon the permittivity and permeability of
every point in the area A traversed by the wave at it travels through
space for a period t. This relationship may be described by the
formula:
t/A =e*u * A/t
Solving for A/t (how much area is covered per time or in other words
the speed that light moves through space):
1/(e * u) = (A/t ) ^2 or
1 / (e*u)-2 = A/t This equation gives you the speed of light !!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 01:47:39 AM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187644466.483548.53990@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
Therefore your "theory" is crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 02:34:45 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
You are wrong, Androcles.
Just apply some logic: if one, or both, of permittivity and
permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
Therefore c depends on the "resistance" of the space,
ie. space can indeed be seen as an "aether".
I like to say: everything is an "aether" which forms a
resistance to a particle on its way through it, like air, water,
and also of course space in general.
If there were no resistance then things could move much faster,
so also the photons --> c ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 03:23:40 AM |
|
|
"qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
news:fae4jg$ce6$1@aioe.org...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > <mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: >
: > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
:
: You are wrong, Androcles.
No I'm not, you are.
: Just apply some logic:
I'm very good at that.
: if one, or both, of permittivity and
: permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: Therefore
I don't agree so there is no "therefore".
Just apply some logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 04:18:34 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
"qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > <mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: >
: > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
:
: You are wrong, Androcles.
No I'm not, you are.
: Just apply some logic:
I'm very good at that.
: if one, or both, of permittivity and
: permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
But this is always true, it's due to the gravitative attraction of masses.
The only thing keeping them to fall into the Sun is that
they are in motion and gain 'slingshot energy' from each other
while circling in their usually elliptic orbits, ie. which gives them
a perpetual motion, ie. much like a perpetuum mobile.
But they would probably move at a much different rate
if the properties mu0 and eps0 of the space had different values
At least light would travel at a different rate through the "aether" space.
Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
That's naive. Gravitation attracts, and therefore bends the path
of everything, even that of light. Even time goes slower in space
around a gravitative body, a celestial object like a planet, sun etc.
Space has properties like permittivity and permeability,
and IMO even some more properties.
Just do a small research on the net about the properties of space.
Space and Gravitation are IMO the most interessting things of the universe.
But we know so little of Space, although it is the key element
to understand everything in our Universe, and beyond...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 07:25:52 AM |
|
|
"qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
news:faealq$uha$1@aioe.org...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > "qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote
: > : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > : > <mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : >
: > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > :
: > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: >
: > No I'm not, you are.
: >
: > : Just apply some logic:
: >
: > I'm very good at that.
: >
: > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: >
: > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
:
: But this is always true, it's due to the gravitative attraction of masses.
The planets do not slow in their orbits. Just apply some logic.
: The only thing keeping them to fall into the Sun is that
: they are in motion and gain 'slingshot energy' from each other
: while circling in their usually elliptic orbits, ie. which gives them
: a perpetual motion, ie. much like a perpetuum mobile.
That's the point. Any aether would slow them down, they'd lose
energy and fall into the Sun. Just apply some logic.
: But they would probably
I don't do "probably". Just apply some logic.
..
:
: > Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
: > Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
:
: That's naive.
You are an idiot. Just apply some logic.
: Gravitation attracts, and therefore bends the path
: of everything, even that of light.
We are discussing your fake permittivity and permeability,
not gravity. Just apply some logic.
: Even time goes slower in space around a gravitative body, a celestial
object
: like a planet, sun etc.
*****, prove it. Just apply some logic.
: Space has properties like permittivity and permeability,
*****, prove it. Just apply some logic.
: and IMO even some more properties.
Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and they all stink.
Just apply some logic, not your lousy opinions.
: Just do a small research on the net about the properties of space.
The net doesn't research properties of space, of which there are none.
Just apply some logic, not your lousy opinions.
: Space and Gravitation are IMO
Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and they all stink.
Just apply some logic, not your lousy opinions.
: the most interessting things of the universe.
: But we know so little of Space, although it is the key element
: to understand everything in our Universe, and beyond...
Why is this pencil bent and broken, Mr Permittivity and Permeability?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
Just do a small research on the net about the properties of broken pencils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "qbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 08:18:57 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
"qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > "qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote
: > : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > : > <mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : >
: > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > :
: > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: >
: > No I'm not, you are.
: >
: > : Just apply some logic:
: >
: > I'm very good at that.
: >
: > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: >
: > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
:
: But this is always true, it's due to the gravitative attraction of masses.
The planets do not slow in their orbits. Just apply some logic.
Sure do they. The orbital velocity of the Earth and other planetes
varies during a full phase around the Sun. See Keppler's 3rd law...
: The only thing keeping them to fall into the Sun is that
: they are in motion and gain 'slingshot energy' from each other
: while circling in their usually elliptic orbits, ie. which gives them
: a perpetual motion, ie. much like a perpetuum mobile.
That's the point. Any aether would slow them down, they'd lose
energy and fall into the Sun. Just apply some logic.
Actually they indeed do lose some energy due to the
resistance of the space. Just apply some logic... :-)
: the most interessting things of the universe.
: But we know so little of Space, although it is the key element
: to understand everything in our Universe, and beyond...
Why is this pencil bent and broken, Mr Permittivity and Permeability?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
But the pencil isn't broken, it's just an optical illusion.
But it is a good demonstration of how Relativistic charlatanism
exactly works: it's all is just an illusion, a fata morgana, as seen
from the distant or from a different angle, aka "frame of reference" :-).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 09:04:17 AM |
|
|
"qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
news:faeooi$an7$1@aioe.org...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > "qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
: > : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > : > "qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote
: > : > : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > : > : > <mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > : > :
: > : > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: > : >
: > : > No I'm not, you are.
: > : >
: > : > : Just apply some logic:
: > : >
: > : > I'm very good at that.
: > : >
: > : > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: > : >
: > : > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the
Sun.
: > :
: > : But this is always true, it's due to the gravitative attraction of
masses.
: >
: > The planets do not slow in their orbits. Just apply some logic.
:
: Sure do they. The orbital velocity of the Earth and other planetes
: varies during a full phase around the Sun. See Keppler's 3rd law...
:
: > : The only thing keeping them to fall into the Sun is that
: > : they are in motion and gain 'slingshot energy' from each other
: > : while circling in their usually elliptic orbits, ie. which gives them
: > : a perpetual motion, ie. much like a perpetuum mobile.
: >
: > That's the point. Any aether would slow them down, they'd lose
: > energy and fall into the Sun. Just apply some logic.
:
: Actually they indeed do lose some energy due to the
: resistance of the space. Just apply some logic... :-)
Ok, then they fall in the Sun. Earth has had 4 billions to do it
and it hasn't happened yet.
:
: > : the most interessting things of the universe.
: > : But we know so little of Space, although it is the key element
: > : to understand everything in our Universe, and beyond...
: >
: > Why is this pencil bent and broken, Mr Permittivity and Permeability?
: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
:
: But the pencil isn't broken, it's just an optical illusion.
Yes it is, I can SEE it is, so it MUST be broken.
Light has nothing to do with it.
I can see Algol getting brighter and dimmer, too, so must be.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
: But it is a good demonstration of how Relativistic charlatanism
: exactly works: it's all is just an illusion, a fata morgana, as seen
: from the distant or from a different angle, aka "frame of reference" :-).
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 06:47:04 AM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 3:18 am, "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote:
"Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
"qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote
: "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: >
: > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
:
: You are wrong, Androcles.
No I'm not, you are.
: Just apply some logic:
I'm very good at that.
: if one, or both, of permittivity and
: permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
But this is always true, it's due to the gravitative attraction of masses.
The only thing keeping them to fall into the Sun is that
they are in motion and gain 'slingshot energy' from each other
while circling in their usually elliptic orbits, ie. which gives them
a perpetual motion, ie. much like a perpetuum mobile.
But they would probably move at a much different rate
if the properties mu0 and eps0 of the space had different values
At least light would travel at a different rate through the "aether" space.
Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
That's naive. Gravitation attracts, and therefore bends the path
of everything, even that of light. Even time goes slower in space
around a gravitative body, a celestial object like a planet, sun etc.
Space has properties like permittivity and permeability,
and IMO even some more properties.
Just do a small research on the net about the properties of space.
Space and Gravitation are IMO the most interessting things of the universe.
But we know so little of Space, although it is the key element
to understand everything in our Universe, and beyond...
The solar wind blows ions away from the Sun.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/magfield.gif
That's not 'nothing'.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "qbit" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 08:02:35 AM |
|
|
"malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote
On Aug 21, 3:18 am, "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote:
"Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
"qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote
: "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: >
: > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
:
: You are wrong, Androcles.
No I'm not, you are.
: Just apply some logic:
I'm very good at that.
: if one, or both, of permittivity and
: permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
But this is always true, it's due to the gravitative attraction of masses.
The only thing keeping them to fall into the Sun is that
they are in motion and gain 'slingshot energy' from each other
while circling in their usually elliptic orbits, ie. which gives them
a perpetual motion, ie. much like a perpetuum mobile.
But they would probably move at a much different rate
if the properties mu0 and eps0 of the space had different values
At least light would travel at a different rate through the "aether" space.
Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
That's naive. Gravitation attracts, and therefore bends the path
of everything, even that of light. Even time goes slower in space
around a gravitative body, a celestial object like a planet, sun etc.
Space has properties like permittivity and permeability,
and IMO even some more properties.
Just do a small research on the net about the properties of space.
Space and Gravitation are IMO the most interessting things of the universe.
But we know so little of Space, although it is the key element
to understand everything in our Universe, and beyond...
The solar wind blows ions away from the Sun.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/magfield.gif
That's not 'nothing'.
True. It was Androcles who was saying so, not me.
The above picture is indeed very interessting.
If the pic is true, then especially Relativity Theory must be changed
I would say. I've never seen Relativists have considered such fields
around a mass like the Sun in their calculations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 09:36:43 AM |
|
|
"qbit" <qbit@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
news:faenph$7of$1@aioe.org...
: "malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote
: > On Aug 21, 3:18 am, "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote:
: > > "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > > > "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote
: > > > : "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > > > : > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: > > > : >
: > > > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > > > : >
: > > > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > > > :
: > > > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: > >
: > > > No I'm not, you are.
: > >
: > > > : Just apply some logic:
: > >
: > > > I'm very good at that.
: > >
: > > > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > > > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > > > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: > >
: > > > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the
Sun.
: > >
: > > But this is always true, it's due to the gravitative attraction of
masses.
: > > The only thing keeping them to fall into the Sun is that
: > > they are in motion and gain 'slingshot energy' from each other
: > > while circling in their usually elliptic orbits, ie. which gives them
: > > a perpetual motion, ie. much like a perpetuum mobile.
: > > But they would probably move at a much different rate
: > > if the properties mu0 and eps0 of the space had different values
: > > At least light would travel at a different rate through the "aether"
space.
: > >
: > > > Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
: > > > Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: > >
: > > That's naive. Gravitation attracts, and therefore bends the path
: > > of everything, even that of light. Even time goes slower in space
: > > around a gravitative body, a celestial object like a planet, sun etc.
: > > Space has properties like permittivity and permeability,
: > > and IMO even some more properties.
: > > Just do a small research on the net about the properties of space.
: > > Space and Gravitation are IMO the most interessting things of the
universe.
: > > But we know so little of Space, although it is the key element
: > > to understand everything in our Universe, and beyond...
: >
: >
: > The solar wind blows ions away from the Sun.
: > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/magfield.gif
: > That's not 'nothing'.
:
: True. It was Androcles who was saying so, not me.
: The above picture is indeed very interessting.
: If the pic is true, then especially Relativity Theory must be changed
: I would say. I've never seen Relativists have considered such fields
: around a mass like the Sun in their calculations.
Ion transport is not the claimed permittivity and permeability of
"free" space, free meaning without matter.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/free
7 a : not obstructed, restricted, or impeded <free to leave> b : not being
used or occupied <waved with his free hand> c : not hampered or restricted
in its normal operation
11 a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with
something else : SEPARATE <free ores>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 06:47:13 AM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 1:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
news:fae4jg$ce6$1@aioe.org...
: "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote: > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: >
: > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
:
: You are wrong, Androcles.
No I'm not, you are.
: Just apply some logic:
I'm very good at that.
: if one, or both, of permittivity and
: permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: Therefore
I don't agree so there is no "therefore".
Just apply some logic.
Planets do not interact with the permittivity and permeability of free
space for the same reason that waving an electromagnet in the air
fails to cause electricity to flow in the electromagnet's circuit.
The relationship between the magnet and the windings that surround it
does not change when you wave both in the air. The key to creating
electromagnetic changes is to create a change in the relationship
between a magnetic field and an electric field (according to Faraday's
Law). This happens in an electromagnet when you move the magnet in
space with respect to the loose electrons (the electric fields) in
adjacent windings or you change the field intensity of the magnetic
field in the magnet (which is what happens in transformers).
The definition of permittivity is the measure of the ability of an
entity to develop an electric field. The definition of permeability
is the measure of the ability of an entity to develop an electric
field.
Since empty space contains non-zero permittivity and permeability
values, it possesses the ability to develop fields. It is as if the
electric field and magnetic field at every point in empty space were
balanced. The way to change the relationship between those two fields
is to change the electric field with respect to the magnetic field or
the magnetic field with respect to the electric field. When a planet
moves through space, it changes both the magnetic field and electric
field of the points through which it passes by precisely the same
amount. In contrast, when light moves through space it alternately
changes the electric field or the magnetic field of the points through
which it passes. Space tries to correct the imbalance. The
disturbance is like throwing a rock into a pond. The spatial medium
reacts just like the pond sending ripples radiating away from the
point of the disturbance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 07:42:22 AM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187696833.172562.100370@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 21, 1:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:fae4jg$ce6$1@aioe.org...
: > : "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote: >
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : >
: > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > :
: > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: >
: > No I'm not, you are.
: >
: > : Just apply some logic:
: >
: > I'm very good at that.
: >
: > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: >
: > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
: > Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
: > Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: >
: > : Therefore
: >
: > I don't agree so there is no "therefore".
: > Just apply some logic.
:
:
:
: Planets do not interact with the permittivity and permeability of free
: space for the same reason that waving an electromagnet in the air
: fails to cause electricity to flow in the electromagnet's circuit.
Light does not interact with space for the same reason that waving
a magnet in nothing causes a voltage to appear.
E = -dB/dt (Faraday)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/m.gif
: The relationship between the magnet and the windings that surround it
: does not change when you wave both in the air.
All motion is relative. Space is nothing so nothing can be relative to it.
: The key to creating
: electromagnetic changes is to create a change in the relationship
: between a magnetic field and an electric field (according to Faraday's
: Law).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: This happens in an electromagnet when you move the magnet in
: space with respect to the loose electrons (the electric fields) in
: adjacent windings or you change the field intensity of the magnetic
: field in the magnet (which is what happens in transformers).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
:
: The definition of permittivity is the measure of the ability of an
: entity to develop an electric field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: The definition of permeability
: is the measure of the ability of an entity to develop an electric
: field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: Since empty space contains non-zero permittivity and permeability
: values,
I do not accept that. Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 08:04:52 AM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187696833.172562.100370@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 21, 1:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
: >
: >news:fae4jg$ce6$1@aioe.org...
: > : "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote: ><m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : >
: > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > :
: > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: >
: > No I'm not, you are.
: >
: > : Just apply some logic:
: >
: > I'm very good at that.
: >
: > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: >
: > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the Sun.
: > Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
: > Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: >
: > : Therefore
: >
: > I don't agree so there is no "therefore".
: > Just apply some logic.
:
:
:
: Planets do not interact with the permittivity and permeability of free
: space for the same reason that waving an electromagnet in the air
: fails to cause electricity to flow in the electromagnet's circuit.
Light does not interact with space for the same reason that waving
a magnet in nothing causes a voltage to appear.
E = -dB/dt (Faraday)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/m.gif
: The relationship between the magnet and the windings that surround it
: does not change when you wave both in the air.
All motion is relative. Space is nothing so nothing can be relative to it.
: The key to creating
: electromagnetic changes is to create a change in the relationship
: between a magnetic field and an electric field (according to Faraday's
: Law).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: This happens in an electromagnet when you move the magnet in
: space with respect to the loose electrons (the electric fields) in
: adjacent windings or you change the field intensity of the magnetic
: field in the magnet (which is what happens in transformers).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
:
: The definition of permittivity is the measure of the ability of an
: entity to develop an electric field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: The definition of permeability
: is the measure of the ability of an entity to develop an electric
: field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: Since empty space contains non-zero permittivity and permeability
: values,
I do not accept that. Prove it.
???
I don't know what to say to the question of space not containing non-
zero permittivity and permeability values. So says the NIST and every
other scientific body. Why do you think that is not so?
The trouble with forums like this is you never know if somebody just
doesn't know science or they have some alternate interesting theory.
Do you have some reason for disputing why empty space possesses
permittivity and permeability?
The deal is that if empty space does have the ability to develop
electric and magnetic fields which is what permittivity and
permeability are all about, then what does that mean?
Doesn't that gives us a very strong clue as to what electricity and
magnetism really are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 09:14:18 AM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187701492.305179.297370@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 21, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > <m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1187696833.172562.100370@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Aug 21, 1:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > : > "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : >news:fae4jg$ce6$1@aioe.org...
: > : > : "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
<m...@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > : > :
: > : > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: > : >
: > : > No I'm not, you are.
: > : >
: > : > : Just apply some logic:
: > : >
: > : > I'm very good at that.
: > : >
: > : > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: > : >
: > : > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the
Sun.
: > : > Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
: > : > Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: > : >
: > : > : Therefore
: > : >
: > : > I don't agree so there is no "therefore".
: > : > Just apply some logic.
: > :
: > :
: > :
: > : Planets do not interact with the permittivity and permeability of free
: > : space for the same reason that waving an electromagnet in the air
: > : fails to cause electricity to flow in the electromagnet's circuit.
: >
: > Light does not interact with space for the same reason that waving
: > a magnet in nothing causes a voltage to appear.
: > E = -dB/dt (Faraday)
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/m.gif
: >
: > : The relationship between the magnet and the windings that surround it
: > : does not change when you wave both in the air.
: >
: > All motion is relative. Space is nothing so nothing can be relative to
it.
: >
: > : The key to creating
: > : electromagnetic changes is to create a change in the relationship
: > : between a magnetic field and an electric field (according to Faraday's
: > : Law).
: >
: > And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: >
: > : This happens in an electromagnet when you move the magnet in
: > : space with respect to the loose electrons (the electric fields) in
: > : adjacent windings or you change the field intensity of the magnetic
: > : field in the magnet (which is what happens in transformers).
: >
: > And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: >
: > :
: > : The definition of permittivity is the measure of the ability of an
: > : entity to develop an electric field.
: >
: > And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: >
: > : The definition of permeability
: > : is the measure of the ability of an entity to develop an electric
: > : field.
: >
: > And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: >
: > : Since empty space contains non-zero permittivity and permeability
: > : values,
: >
: > I do not accept that. Prove it.
:
: ???
:
: I don't know
Of course you don't. You believe without proof, I do not.
: what to say to the question of space not containing non-
: zero permittivity and permeability values. So says the NIST and every
: other scientific body. Why do you think that is not so?
I asked for proof, not the opinion of NIST or anyone else.
Provide proof and I'll answer your question.
: The trouble with forums like this is you never know if somebody just
: doesn't know science or they have some alternate interesting theory.
You believe without proof, I do not. Are you somebody who just
doesn't know science ?
: Do you have some reason for disputing why empty space possesses
: permittivity and permeability?
Yes.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
:
:
: The deal is that if empty space does have the ability to develop
: electric and magnetic fields
It doesn't. I asked for proof, not handwaving.
which is what permittivity and
: permeability are all about, then what does that mean?
It means you have not provided the proof I requested.
:
: Doesn't that gives us a very strong clue as to what electricity and
: magnetism really are.
No, it's guessing, and the aether was tossed out with the Michelson
and Morley experiment. Some people forgot to toss out its properties
as well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 08:18:40 AM |
|
|
On Aug 21, 6:04 am, wrote:
On Aug 21, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1187696833.172562.100370@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 21, 1:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
: >
: >news:fae4jg$ce6$1@aioe.org...
: > : "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote: ><m...@globuluscom=
m=2Ecom> wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : >
: > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > :
: > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: >
: > No I'm not, you are.
: >
: > : Just apply some logic:
: >
: > I'm very good at that.
: >
: > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: >
: > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the =
Sun.
: > Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
: > Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: >
: > : Therefore
: >
: > I don't agree so there is no "therefore".
: > Just apply some logic.
:
:
:
: Planets do not interact with the permittivity and permeability of free
: space for the same reason that waving an electromagnet in the air
: fails to cause electricity to flow in the electromagnet's circuit.
Light does not interact with space for the same reason that waving
a magnet in nothing causes a voltage to appear.
E =3D -dB/dt (Faraday)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/m.gif
: The relationship between the magnet and the windings that surround it
: does not change when you wave both in the air.
All motion is relative. Space is nothing so nothing can be relative to=
it.
: The key to creating
: electromagnetic changes is to create a change in the relationship
: between a magnetic field and an electric field (according to Faraday's
: Law).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: This happens in an electromagnet when you move the magnet in
: space with respect to the loose electrons (the electric fields) in
: adjacent windings or you change the field intensity of the magnetic
: field in the magnet (which is what happens in transformers).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
:
: The definition of permittivity is the measure of the ability of an
: entity to develop an electric field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: The definition of permeability
: is the measure of the ability of an entity to develop an electric
: field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: Since empty space contains non-zero permittivity and permeability
: values,
I do not accept that. Prove it.
???
I don't know what to say to the question of space not containing non-
zero permittivity and permeability values. So says the NIST and every
other scientific body. Why do you think that is not so?
The trouble with forums like this is you never know if somebody just
doesn't know science or they have some alternate interesting theory.
Do you have some reason for disputing why empty space possesses
permittivity and permeability?
The deal is that if empty space does have the ability to develop
electric and magnetic fields which is what permittivity and
permeability are all about, then what does that mean?
Doesn't that gives us a very strong clue as to what electricity and
magnetism really are.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The magnetic constant 0 (equal to the vacuum permeability, also known
as the permeability of free space) is a universal physical constant,
relating mechanical and electromagnetic units of measurement. In the
International System of Units (SI), the magnetic constant =3D 4 =D710 7
H/m, or approximately 1.2566=D710 6 H/m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_of_free_space
The electric constant 0 (also known as the permittivity of free
space, or by the term dielectric constant of vacuum), is a
fundamental physical constant. The constant 0 connects mechanical
quantities (time, length, mass) to the units for electrical charge,
for example in Coulomb's law. Its value in SI units is
8=2E855 x 10-12 F m-1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_constant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 09:16:42 AM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187702320.090845.277090@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 21, 6:04 am, wrote:
On Aug 21, 5:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1187696833.172562.100370@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 21, 1:23 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote in message
: >
: >news:fae4jg$ce6$1@aioe.org...
: > : "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
< > wrote in message
: >
: > : >
: > : > : c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space.
: > : >
: > : > That's aether all right, and it doesn't work.
: > :
: > : You are wrong, Androcles.
: >
: > No I'm not, you are.
: >
: > : Just apply some logic:
: >
: > I'm very good at that.
: >
: > : if one, or both, of permittivity and
: > : permeability of space were differrent then obviously also
: > : c would have a differrent value. Don't you agree?
: >
: > No. Planets would interact with the medium, slow and fall into the
Sun.
: > Just apply some logic. Space is nothing and has no properties.
: > Bullets fly through it unimpeded and so does light.
: >
: > : Therefore
: >
: > I don't agree so there is no "therefore".
: > Just apply some logic.
:
:
:
: Planets do not interact with the permittivity and permeability of free
: space for the same reason that waving an electromagnet in the air
: fails to cause electricity to flow in the electromagnet's circuit.
Light does not interact with space for the same reason that waving
a magnet in nothing causes a voltage to appear.
E = -dB/dt (Faraday)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/m.gif
: The relationship between the magnet and the windings that surround it
: does not change when you wave both in the air.
All motion is relative. Space is nothing so nothing can be relative to
it.
: The key to creating
: electromagnetic changes is to create a change in the relationship
: between a magnetic field and an electric field (according to Faraday's
: Law).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: This happens in an electromagnet when you move the magnet in
: space with respect to the loose electrons (the electric fields) in
: adjacent windings or you change the field intensity of the magnetic
: field in the magnet (which is what happens in transformers).
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
:
: The definition of permittivity is the measure of the ability of an
: entity to develop an electric field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: The definition of permeability
: is the measure of the ability of an entity to develop an electric
: field.
And nothing whatever to do with the empty space.
: Since empty space contains non-zero permittivity and permeability
: values,
I do not accept that. Prove it.
???
I don't know what to say to the question of space not containing non-
zero permittivity and permeability values. So says the NIST and every
other scientific body. Why do you think that is not so?
The trouble with forums like this is you never know if somebody just
doesn't know science or they have some alternate interesting theory.
Do you have some reason for disputing why empty space possesses
permittivity and permeability?
The deal is that if empty space does have the ability to develop
electric and magnetic fields which is what permittivity and
permeability are all about, then what does that mean?
Doesn't that gives us a very strong clue as to what electricity and
magnetism really are.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The magnetic constant 0 (equal to the vacuum permeability, also known
as the permeability of free space) is a universal physical constant,
relating mechanical and electromagnetic units of measurement. In the
International System of Units (SI), the magnetic constant = 4 ×10 7
H/m, or approximately 1.2566×10 6 H/m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_of_free_space
The crackpot opinion of Wackypedia is not proof. Any idiot
can write wackypedia and they do. I asked for PROOF.
Proof:
1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth
or a fact
b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement
especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles
of reasoning
2 obsolete : experience
3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially
: unyielding hardness
The electric constant 0 (also known as the permittivity of free
space, or by the term dielectric constant of vacuum), is a
fundamental physical constant. The constant 0 connects mechanical
quantities (time, length, mass) to the units for electrical charge,
for example in Coulomb's law. Its value in SI units is
8.855 x 10-12 F m-1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_constant
The crackpot opinion of Wackypedia is not proof. Any idiot
can write wackypedia and they do. I asked for PROOF.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
20 Aug 2007 04:20:03 PM |
|
|
On Aug 20, 2:14 pm, wrote:
On Aug 20, 9:11 am, "qbit" <q...@quantumworldz.com> wrote:
< > wrote
On Aug 19, 4:46 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
< > wrote
: On Aug 19, 2:32 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: <> wrote in message
: >
: > : In the new theory, light still moves back and forth between an
: > : electric field and a magnetic one, as Maxwell's equations mai=
ntain,
: > : but the fields are properties of space itself.
: >
: > That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of th=
e closet
: > and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garb=
age.
:
: --No.
YES.
: In the aether theory, an invisible aether occupied space and
: light moved the aether. In Kinetic Space Theory, light moves spa=
ce
: itself.
So now aether is called space, just as it it always has been, with
properties of permittivity and permeability.
That's not a "new" theory, it's the old aether hauled out of the cl=
oset
and dusted off, then given a new coat of paint. It's still garbage.
Pull the other leg, it's got Big Ben on it.
: According to Kinetic Space Theory, light moving through space
: is like sound moving in the air.
Yeah, that's exactly what the aether was.
Just another nutter that doesn't understand electromagnetics
and wanks off over space having some crazy properties, the same
idiotic properties that aether had. Whether you call it moving space
or aether, it's the same *****.
THAT'S NOT TRUE.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't make any "crazy" claims about the
properties of space, like the aether had to have. It doesn't need
to. There's nothing that relies on unverifiable beliefs in the
unseen or invisible in Kinetic Space Theory. The properties that you
talk about, permittivity and permeabilty, are real measurable
properties of space. They are what capacitance and inductance are
based on. They are constants. And, the constant speed of light is
pretty closely equivalent to them. The reciprocal of the square root
of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space
equals 299863380.5 m/s compared to the accepted value of the speed of
light value of 299792458 m/s (The two values are within .0003% of one
another). Do you think that's coincidence???
Hmm. maybe you use some wild values?
I have the following and they give just "c":
mu0 =3D 0.0000012566370614359172954
eps0 =3D 0.0000000000088541878176204
1/sqrt(mu0 * eps0) =3D 299792458, ie. c
Z0 =3D 376.7303134617706554681984004
c =3D 299792458.00000000000000000000
cr =3D 299733463.58589092518826778992
magic1 =3D 1.0204081632653061224489796
Kinetic Space Theory maintains that the speed that a space wave would
require to transit space can be calculated based on the idea that the
time period t required to build electric and magnetic fields (to cycle
through compressing space and displacing space) in an area A traversed
by a wave that moves through space in a period t is equal to the
permittivity e and permeability u of the area A that the wave will
cover in that time period t. In other words,
t/A =3D e * u * A/t
Now, if you solve for A/t, the amount of area traversed during each
wave period, you get theequation that says that the speed of light
should equal the reciprocal of the square root of the product of the
permittivity and permeability of free space or, in other words, the
equation that leads to a value that is .0003% of the speed of light in
a vacuum.
Kinetic Space Theory doesn't rely on stuff like the space-time
dilation of Relativity or the 11 or 23 unseen dimensions of string
theory. Everything it suggests relies on the observable rather than
the abstract.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That's the point!
c =3D 1 / (e*u)-2
c is a function of the permittivity and permeability of space. The
speed of light is a constant because the permittivity and permeability
of space are constants. Their values impede the build up of electric
and magnetic fields or, in the parlance of Kinetic Space Theory, they
are the values that reflect just how much space resists being
compressed or displaced. The relationship of the speed of light to
the permittivity and permeability of space is best explained if space
itself is moving! This means light moves through space just like
every other traveling wave known to science. It moves the medium
through which it travels. And so, empty space is kinetic --- it is
capable of movement!
Quoting Kinetic Space Theory: The time t relevant to developing
electric and magnetic fields at every point in the area A traversed by
a space wave is dependent upon the permittivity and permeability of
every point in the area A traversed by the wave at it travels through
space for a period t. This relationship may be described by the
formula:
t/A =3De*u * A/t
Solving for A/t (how much area is covered per time or in other words
the speed that light moves through space):
1/(e * u) =3D (A/t ) ^2 or
1 / (e*u)-2 =3D A/t This equation gives you the speed of light !!!- Hid=
e quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The accepted value of the permeability of free (empty) space is:
the magnetic constant =3D 1.25663706 =D7 10-6 m kg s-2 A-2
The accepted value of the permittivity of free (empty) space is:
the electric constant =3D 8.85418782 =D7 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
21 Aug 2007 01:57:40 AM |
|
|
<mh@globuluscomm.com> wrote in message
news:1187644803.358892.178260@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
The accepted value of the permeability of free (empty) space is:
the magnetic constant = 1.25663706 × 10-6 m kg s-2 A-2
The accepted value of the permittivity of free (empty) space is:
the electric constant = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2
The accepted Xtian doctrine is Christ was a Jew whose mother was a virgin.
That is *****, and so are your values.
I don't accept them and Sagnac doesn't accept them.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Your "new" theory is the old aether pulled out of the trash can, dusted off
and given a fresh coat of paint. It is still garbage. There is nothing new
in it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Kinetic Space Theory Proposes Space Moves |
19 Aug 2007 04:30:53 PM |
|
| </ | |
