Science > Physics > The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Laurent" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2004 03:13:08 PM |
| Object: |
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed
of light
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
Since ratios like permeability and permittivity are determined at
the aether level, and the aether is immaterial and not bound by
spacetime laws, c has to be frame independent.
The speed of light sets the scales, and because mass is physically
finite there are time dilations and length contractions in relation
to other inertial frames. This is where the principle of relativity
and the principle of equivalency come from.
There isn't an absolute time because there is no preferred frame,
the aether is immaterial. Materially speaking, the Universe is
background free.
--------------------------------------------------
[quote from " Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics "
by John C. Baez, as it appeared on the book " Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale " by Craig Callender and Nick Nugget]
"...quantum field theory says that associated with any mass m there
is a length called its Compton wavelength, lc, such that determining
the position of a particle of mass m to within one Compton
wavelength requires enough energy to create another particle of that
mass. Particle creation is a quintessentially
quantum-field-theoretic phenomenon. Thus, we may say that the
Compton wavelength sets the distance scale at which quantum field
theory becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a particle
of a given mass. On the other hand, general relativity says that
associated to any mass m there is a length called the Schwarzschild
radius, ls, such that compressing an object of mass m to a size
smaller than this results in the formation of a black hole. The
Schwarzschild radius is roughly the distance scale at which general
relativity becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a
given mass. Now, ignoring some numerical factors, we have:
lc = hbar/mc
and
ls = Gm/c^2
These two lengths become equal when m is the Planck mass. And when
this happens, they both equal the Planck length! " --- John C. Baez
-----------------------------------------------------
Most scientists agree with Planck in that quanta are the smallest
measurable energy amount or quantum of action, and that Planck's
constant 'h' relates the energy in one quantum of electromagnetic
radiation to the frequency of that radiation. That all of matter's
spectral properties and patterns can be explained in terms of exact
multiples of a basic minimum value, and that thanks to the
determination of 'h', we now can conceive order at the quantum
mechanical level. Most also agree with de Broglie in that every
object in motion would move in a wave and is accompanied by a wave,
also that he showed that electrons traverse an integral number of
wavelengths for each complete orbit of an atom and that the
quantization and structure of quanta will always depend on the
properties of their source and the objects with which they interact.
Quanta are measurable amounts of cycling spacetime. In reality there
aren't any vibrating point particles, as Heisenberg properly and
adeptly assumed, it's more like wavefronts... or membranes. A
quantum of action (quanta) appears as a very small region of
randomly fluctuating, process independent object.
There are no point particles, a point particle must be internally
static, with no internal time, and that is not possible. Points
don't even occupy space, they don't really exist, the point is only
a mathematical convenience. Each particle, even the smallest, is in
constant internal motion, each is the product of an internal
instability. Each particle possesses its own internal time - for
this reason it is not possible to get rid of all uncertainties at a
spacetime level.
Planck's constant is closely related to a particle's wave-length and
from where particle complementarity and the non-commutativity
between momentum and position emerged as properties of space and
matter and as proof of the inseparability of quantum processes.
Momentum and position don't commute because you can't be stopped and
moving at the same time.
The fundamental particle must then be a small spherical region of
pulsating spacetime whose diameter equals one Planck length.
Material space (as opposed to empty space) must be made of them, it
is spacetime's background, a sea of randomly fluctuating particles.
Material space is grainy, it is quantum matter, and each grain has
its own internal motion or cycle.
According to Timothy Boyer, material space is constituted by at
least two different spectrums. One is noisy and expanding, while the
other is self-organized and condensing. One exhibits negative
gravitation, the other, positive gravitation. From one material
space is created, from the other, matter.
Matter waves are constantly flowing inwards into matter, while heat
and light flow away from matter. There is a continuos condensation
and expansion of the substrate taking place. As objects are
accelerated in a space-time metric, each new position creates a new
energy requirement from the continuum.
Material space is made from information bits, matter precursors, a
pre-geometry made of process independent units of information which
exist in chaos and are ordered by logic and activity into spacetime.
But for natural reasons, i.e. energy conservation laws, everything
that comes into spacetime must be perceived and energetically
measured before it can materialize. There has to be a measuring
device sensing the particle's location and momentum in relation with
the rest of that inertial frame of reference before it can
crystallize as the information that constitutes it flows radially
from hyperspace towards its center in spacetime. But this measuring
device isn't some external being, it is the Universe itself. Each
particle senses each other and their relation to space, building an
information network filled with geometrical relationships
(spacetime), which are in turn used as the future is built on the
already existing information. Information is created and preserved
in matter (i.e., DNA).
Particles in spacetime perceive, select, and integrate into their
state wave function only that information which is important or
useful to them.
The observer, in present theory, must then refer to any object that
is able to interpret environmental information brought to it by EM
waves. Observation/measurement with the only purpose of establishing
the particle's spatial and energetic parameters (speed, size,
density...) in that inertial frame. The particle must first be in
thermal equilibrium with its surroundings before it can exist as
matter in spacetime, and that's a law!
Von Neumann was right when he said that the evolution of the
Schrodinger wave could only depend on quantum mechanical
observables - implying that this information can only come from
spacetime - counting the observer (mind) as an efficacious agent -
the theory considers brains to be measuring instruments. The only
reason human brains entered the equation was that, as they observed
and perceived light (EMR) coming from the particle, information
about momentum and location, which is vital to maintain energy
conservation laws, became known to the particle/system allowing it
to complete the feedback control loop and continue to condense.
Particle complementarity is due to an indivisible process which
originates in a common background, but the only information being
transferred (through EMR) from the aether to the particles is that
concerning momentum and location in relation with that inertial
frame and the rest of Universe. There is no need for some mega
information storage system which must contain the history of the
Universe, all the information needed for the evolution of the system
in spacetime is contained by the system itself - in spacetime.
According to Mach and others, motion by all objects within the
Universe is instantaneously reported through inertial space. As a
particle senses other particles it completes the information
exchange, realizing the spatial relationships between particles and
space that is needed to collapse the wave packet from hyperspace as
it crystallizes into spacetime. Perception is a very old natural
function of matter not some exclusive human ability.
Contradict me if you can.
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
08 Jul 2004 05:48:34 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:nLGdnb7L9ckbN3Dd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed
of light
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
All who harp on permeability and permittivity in Maxwell's equations fail to
recognize that the theory Maxwell's equations is only an approximation to -
QED - has one and only one constant that needs to be detrained by
experiment - the fine structure constant. All the rest are simply artifacts
of the choice of units and hence of no physical significance.
Bill
Since ratios like permeability and permittivity are determined at
the aether level, and the aether is immaterial and not bound by
spacetime laws, c has to be frame independent.
The speed of light sets the scales, and because mass is physically
finite there are time dilations and length contractions in relation
to other inertial frames. This is where the principle of relativity
and the principle of equivalency come from.
There isn't an absolute time because there is no preferred frame,
the aether is immaterial. Materially speaking, the Universe is
background free.
--------------------------------------------------
[quote from " Higher-dimensional algebra and Planck scale physics "
by John C. Baez, as it appeared on the book " Physics Meets
Philosophy at the Planck Scale " by Craig Callender and Nick Nugget]
"...quantum field theory says that associated with any mass m there
is a length called its Compton wavelength, lc, such that determining
the position of a particle of mass m to within one Compton
wavelength requires enough energy to create another particle of that
mass. Particle creation is a quintessentially
quantum-field-theoretic phenomenon. Thus, we may say that the
Compton wavelength sets the distance scale at which quantum field
theory becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a particle
of a given mass. On the other hand, general relativity says that
associated to any mass m there is a length called the Schwarzschild
radius, ls, such that compressing an object of mass m to a size
smaller than this results in the formation of a black hole. The
Schwarzschild radius is roughly the distance scale at which general
relativity becomes crucial for understanding the behaviour of a
given mass. Now, ignoring some numerical factors, we have:
lc = hbar/mc
and
ls = Gm/c^2
These two lengths become equal when m is the Planck mass. And when
this happens, they both equal the Planck length! " --- John C. Baez
-----------------------------------------------------
Most scientists agree with Planck in that quanta are the smallest
measurable energy amount or quantum of action, and that Planck's
constant 'h' relates the energy in one quantum of electromagnetic
radiation to the frequency of that radiation. That all of matter's
spectral properties and patterns can be explained in terms of exact
multiples of a basic minimum value, and that thanks to the
determination of 'h', we now can conceive order at the quantum
mechanical level. Most also agree with de Broglie in that every
object in motion would move in a wave and is accompanied by a wave,
also that he showed that electrons traverse an integral number of
wavelengths for each complete orbit of an atom and that the
quantization and structure of quanta will always depend on the
properties of their source and the objects with which they interact.
Quanta are measurable amounts of cycling spacetime. In reality there
aren't any vibrating point particles, as Heisenberg properly and
adeptly assumed, it's more like wavefronts... or membranes. A
quantum of action (quanta) appears as a very small region of
randomly fluctuating, process independent object.
There are no point particles, a point particle must be internally
static, with no internal time, and that is not possible. Points
don't even occupy space, they don't really exist, the point is only
a mathematical convenience. Each particle, even the smallest, is in
constant internal motion, each is the product of an internal
instability. Each particle possesses its own internal time - for
this reason it is not possible to get rid of all uncertainties at a
spacetime level.
Planck's constant is closely related to a particle's wave-length and
from where particle complementarity and the non-commutativity
between momentum and position emerged as properties of space and
matter and as proof of the inseparability of quantum processes.
Momentum and position don't commute because you can't be stopped and
moving at the same time.
The fundamental particle must then be a small spherical region of
pulsating spacetime whose diameter equals one Planck length.
Material space (as opposed to empty space) must be made of them, it
is spacetime's background, a sea of randomly fluctuating particles.
Material space is grainy, it is quantum matter, and each grain has
its own internal motion or cycle.
According to Timothy Boyer, material space is constituted by at
least two different spectrums. One is noisy and expanding, while the
other is self-organized and condensing. One exhibits negative
gravitation, the other, positive gravitation. From one material
space is created, from the other, matter.
Matter waves are constantly flowing inwards into matter, while heat
and light flow away from matter. There is a continuos condensation
and expansion of the substrate taking place. As objects are
accelerated in a space-time metric, each new position creates a new
energy requirement from the continuum.
Material space is made from information bits, matter precursors, a
pre-geometry made of process independent units of information which
exist in chaos and are ordered by logic and activity into spacetime.
But for natural reasons, i.e. energy conservation laws, everything
that comes into spacetime must be perceived and energetically
measured before it can materialize. There has to be a measuring
device sensing the particle's location and momentum in relation with
the rest of that inertial frame of reference before it can
crystallize as the information that constitutes it flows radially
from hyperspace towards its center in spacetime. But this measuring
device isn't some external being, it is the Universe itself. Each
particle senses each other and their relation to space, building an
information network filled with geometrical relationships
(spacetime), which are in turn used as the future is built on the
already existing information. Information is created and preserved
in matter (i.e., DNA).
Particles in spacetime perceive, select, and integrate into their
state wave function only that information which is important or
useful to them.
The observer, in present theory, must then refer to any object that
is able to interpret environmental information brought to it by EM
waves. Observation/measurement with the only purpose of establishing
the particle's spatial and energetic parameters (speed, size,
density...) in that inertial frame. The particle must first be in
thermal equilibrium with its surroundings before it can exist as
matter in spacetime, and that's a law!
Von Neumann was right when he said that the evolution of the
Schrodinger wave could only depend on quantum mechanical
observables - implying that this information can only come from
spacetime - counting the observer (mind) as an efficacious agent -
the theory considers brains to be measuring instruments. The only
reason human brains entered the equation was that, as they observed
and perceived light (EMR) coming from the particle, information
about momentum and location, which is vital to maintain energy
conservation laws, became known to the particle/system allowing it
to complete the feedback control loop and continue to condense.
Particle complementarity is due to an indivisible process which
originates in a common background, but the only information being
transferred (through EMR) from the aether to the particles is that
concerning momentum and location in relation with that inertial
frame and the rest of Universe. There is no need for some mega
information storage system which must contain the history of the
Universe, all the information needed for the evolution of the system
in spacetime is contained by the system itself - in spacetime.
According to Mach and others, motion by all objects within the
Universe is instantaneously reported through inertial space. As a
particle senses other particles it completes the information
exchange, realizing the spatial relationships between particles and
space that is needed to collapse the wave packet from hyperspace as
it crystallizes into spacetime. Perception is a very old natural
function of matter not some exclusive human ability.
Contradict me if you can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
08 Jul 2004 08:09:26 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:6bkHc.84893$sj4.54749@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:nLGdnb7L9ckbN3Dd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the
speed
of light
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the
speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at
the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is
not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
All who harp on permeability and permittivity in Maxwell's
equations fail to
recognize that the theory Maxwell's equations is only an
approximation to -
QED - has one and only one constant that needs to be detrained by
experiment - the fine structure constant. All the rest are simply
artifacts
of the choice of units and hence of no physical significance.
Bill
Right, but the relationship between the speed of light, permeability
and permittivity would still hold true, the equation would still
have the same structure, it would look the same way even if we had
different values for those units.
Look at this.
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st9
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
08 Jul 2004 11:03:56 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ZaGdnZFwDu_lbXDd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:6bkHc.84893$sj4.54749@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:nLGdnb7L9ckbN3Dd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the
speed
of light
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the
speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined at
the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it is
not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
All who harp on permeability and permittivity in Maxwell's
equations fail to
recognize that the theory Maxwell's equations is only an
approximation to -
QED - has one and only one constant that needs to be detrained by
experiment - the fine structure constant. All the rest are simply
artifacts
of the choice of units and hence of no physical significance.
Bill
Right, but the relationship between the speed of light, permeability
and permittivity would still hold true, the equation would still
have the same structure, it would look the same way even if we had
different values for those units.
Look at this.
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st9
Had a look. It said:
'A research team has found evidence that the fine structure constant--which
measures the strength with which subatomic particles interact with one
another and with light--was different at earlier times in the history of the
Universe.'
This is out of date - the latest evidence is it has not changed. And even
if it did that does not change the fact the permeability and permittivity
constants are simply a result of our choice of units having no fundamental
significance at all.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
09 Jul 2004 06:28:07 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:MOoHc.85169$sj4.27150@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ZaGdnZFwDu_lbXDd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:6bkHc.84893$sj4.54749@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:nLGdnb7L9ckbN3Dd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by
the
speed
of light
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is
the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the
speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined
at
the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it
is
not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
All who harp on permeability and permittivity in Maxwell's
equations fail to
recognize that the theory Maxwell's equations is only an
approximation to -
QED - has one and only one constant that needs to be detrained
by
experiment - the fine structure constant. All the rest are
simply
artifacts
of the choice of units and hence of no physical significance.
Bill
Right, but the relationship between the speed of light,
permeability
and permittivity would still hold true, the equation would still
have the same structure, it would look the same way even if we
had
different values for those units.
Look at this.
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st9
Had a look. It said:
'A research team has found evidence that the fine structure
constant--which
measures the strength with which subatomic particles interact with
one
another and with light--was different at earlier times in the
history of the
Universe.'
This is out of date - the latest evidence is it has not changed.
And even
if it did that does not change the fact the permeability and
permittivity
constants are simply a result of our choice of units having no
fundamental
significance at all.
Bill
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result of our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and they fall
apart.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
09 Jul 2004 09:01:02 AM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ld-dnX9UsbYKHXPdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:MOoHc.85169$sj4.27150@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ZaGdnZFwDu_lbXDd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:6bkHc.84893$sj4.54749@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:nLGdnb7L9ckbN3Dd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by
the
speed
of light
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is
the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the
speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined
at
the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it
is
not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
All who harp on permeability and permittivity in Maxwell's
equations fail to
recognize that the theory Maxwell's equations is only an
approximation to -
QED - has one and only one constant that needs to be detrained
by
experiment - the fine structure constant. All the rest are
simply
artifacts
of the choice of units and hence of no physical significance.
Bill
Right, but the relationship between the speed of light,
permeability
and permittivity would still hold true, the equation would still
have the same structure, it would look the same way even if we
had
different values for those units.
Look at this.
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st9
Had a look. It said:
'A research team has found evidence that the fine structure
constant--which
measures the strength with which subatomic particles interact with
one
another and with light--was different at earlier times in the
history of the
Universe.'
This is out of date - the latest evidence is it has not changed.
And even
if it did that does not change the fact the permeability and
permittivity
constants are simply a result of our choice of units having no
fundamental
significance at all.
Bill
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result of our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and they fall
apart.
I suggest you acquaint yourself with Gaussian units.
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 11:05:04 AM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ld-dnX9UsbYKHXPdRVn-tw@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:MOoHc.85169$sj4.27150@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ZaGdnZFwDu_lbXDd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:6bkHc.84893$sj4.54749@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:nLGdnb7L9ckbN3Dd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by
the
speed
of light
"c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is
the
permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales
The only reason this relationship holds true is because the
speed of
light (and of all electromagnetic phenomena) is determined
at
the
aether level. It remains constant in all frames because it
is
not
dependent on a coordinate system like matter with mass is.
All who harp on permeability and permittivity in Maxwell's
equations fail to
recognize that the theory Maxwell's equations is only an
approximation to -
QED - has one and only one constant that needs to be detrained
by
experiment - the fine structure constant. All the rest are
simply
artifacts
of the choice of units and hence of no physical significance.
Bill
Right, but the relationship between the speed of light,
permeability
and permittivity would still hold true, the equation would still
have the same structure, it would look the same way even if we
had
different values for those units.
Look at this.
http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st9
Had a look. It said:
'A research team has found evidence that the fine structure
constant--which
measures the strength with which subatomic particles interact with
one
another and with light--was different at earlier times in the
history of the
Universe.'
This is out of date - the latest evidence is it has not changed.
And even
if it did that does not change the fact the permeability and
permittivity
constants are simply a result of our choice of units having no
fundamental
significance at all.
Bill
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result of our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and they fall
apart.
*****. They do not occur in Maxwell's equations at all. They were
inserted spuriously by the units tinkers about 70 years after Maxwell
produced his equations. The solitary physical constant which appears
in Maxwell's equations in free space is a quantity related to the
ratio between the ES and EM units of charge. He called it c. It has
the same units as velocity. He proved that EM radiation is propagated
with that speed.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by thespeed of light |
09 Jul 2004 06:49:06 AM |
|
|
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result of our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Precisely right.
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and they fall
apart.
ROTFL!!! You have never seen Maxwell's equations in Gaussian units,
apparently. Hint: that's the form which is most often used in
theoretical physics.
Additionally, I am not aware of any "Einstein theory" which would use
the permeability and permittivity constants of the vacuum. What do you
mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
09 Jul 2004 08:45:38 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:ccm0ni$743$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result of
our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Precisely right.
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and they
fall
apart.
ROTFL!!! You have never seen Maxwell's equations in Gaussian
units,
apparently. Hint: that's the form which is most often used in
theoretical physics.
Additionally, I am not aware of any "Einstein theory" which would
use
the permeability and permittivity constants of the vacuum. What do
you
mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
Who cares about the units, those are relative, I am talking about
the concepts.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
09 Jul 2004 09:07:27 AM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:gdqdnTjldK5kPXPdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message news:ccm0ni$743$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result of
our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Precisely right.
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and they
fall
apart.
ROTFL!!! You have never seen Maxwell's equations in Gaussian
units,
apparently. Hint: that's the form which is most often used in
theoretical physics.
Additionally, I am not aware of any "Einstein theory" which would
use
the permeability and permittivity constants of the vacuum. What do
you
mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
Who cares about the units, those are relative, I am talking about
the concepts.
If you care about concepts then you will realize that a choice tells us
nothing fundamental at all or do you think, for example, -273 degrees
Celsius corresponding to absolute zero has some fundamental significance?
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
09 Jul 2004 10:19:08 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:zExHc.86021$sj4.50786@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:gdqdnTjldK5kPXPdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in
message news:ccm0ni$743$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result
of
our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Precisely right.
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and
they
fall
apart.
ROTFL!!! You have never seen Maxwell's equations in Gaussian
units,
apparently. Hint: that's the form which is most often used in
theoretical physics.
Additionally, I am not aware of any "Einstein theory" which
would
use
the permeability and permittivity constants of the vacuum.
What do
you
mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
Who cares about the units, those are relative, I am talking
about
the concepts.
If you care about concepts then you will realize that a choice
tells us
nothing fundamental at all or do you think, for example, -273
degrees
Celsius corresponding to absolute zero has some fundamental
significance?
Bill
We already agreed that the choice of units is irrelevant, what
matters are the concepts. Are we going in circles here?
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
09 Jul 2004 06:43:55 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:sPudnXL7WunmKnPdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:zExHc.86021$sj4.50786@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:gdqdnTjldK5kPXPdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote
in
message news:ccm0ni$743$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a result
of
our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at all."
Precisely right.
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories and
they
fall
apart.
ROTFL!!! You have never seen Maxwell's equations in Gaussian
units,
apparently. Hint: that's the form which is most often used in
theoretical physics.
Additionally, I am not aware of any "Einstein theory" which
would
use
the permeability and permittivity constants of the vacuum.
What do
you
mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
Who cares about the units, those are relative, I am talking
about
the concepts.
If you care about concepts then you will realize that a choice
tells us
nothing fundamental at all or do you think, for example, -273
degrees
Celsius corresponding to absolute zero has some fundamental
significance?
Bill
We already agreed that the choice of units is irrelevant, what
matters are the concepts. Are we going in circles here?
Do you no longer agree with what you wrote previously? - namely:
'Since ratios like permeability and permittivity are determined at
the aether level, and the aether is immaterial and not bound by
spacetime laws, c has to be frame independent.'
The permeability and permittivity constants that appear in Maxwell's
equations are simply a result of the units used and, just like -273 degrees
in the Celsius scale corresponding to absolute zero, indicative of nothing.
Hence they are not a-priori determined by the hypothesized happenings in a
medium of dubious physical validity.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
09 Jul 2004 09:20:23 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:%4GHc.86770$sj4.8198@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:sPudnXL7WunmKnPdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:zExHc.86021$sj4.50786@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:gdqdnTjldK5kPXPdRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de>
wrote
in
message news:ccm0ni$743$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Laurent wrote:
[snip]
"permeability and permittivity constants are simply a
result
of
our
choice of units having no fundamental significance at
all."
Precisely right.
Yet, you take them out of Maxwell or Einstein theories
and
they
fall
apart.
ROTFL!!! You have never seen Maxwell's equations in
Gaussian
units,
apparently. Hint: that's the form which is most often used
in
theoretical physics.
Additionally, I am not aware of any "Einstein theory"
which
would
use
the permeability and permittivity constants of the vacuum.
What do
you
mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
Who cares about the units, those are relative, I am talking
about
the concepts.
If you care about concepts then you will realize that a choice
tells us
nothing fundamental at all or do you think, for example, -273
degrees
Celsius corresponding to absolute zero has some fundamental
significance?
Bill
We already agreed that the choice of units is irrelevant, what
matters are the concepts. Are we going in circles here?
Do you no longer agree with what you wrote previously? - namely:
'Since ratios like permeability and permittivity are determined at
the aether level, and the aether is immaterial and not bound by
spacetime laws, c has to be frame independent.'
The permeability and permittivity constants that appear in
Maxwell's
equations are simply a result of the units used and, just
like -273 degrees
in the Celsius scale corresponding to absolute zero, indicative of
nothing.
Hence they are not a-priori determined by the hypothesized
happenings in a
medium of dubious physical validity.
Bill
Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 11:05:02 AM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
[snip]
Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
Thereby proving you to be quite stupid.
Go away and learn to count your marbles, remembering to stop when you
reach 2.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 12:54:25 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ccp43d$hlt$4@titan.btinternet.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
[snip]
Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
Thereby proving you to be quite stupid.
Go away and learn to count your marbles, remembering to stop when
you
reach 2.
Franz
Damn! That sounds pretty angry, why are you angry?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 01:18:31 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ccp43d$hlt$4@titan.btinternet.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
[snip]
Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
Thereby proving you to be quite stupid.
Go away and learn to count your marbles, remembering to stop when
you
reach 2.
Franz
Here, another update.
"Einstein developed this insight, treating gravity as an
accelerational field. He realized that being held stationary in a
gravitational field (as on the Earth's surface) had the same effects
on one's measurements as being accelerated in deep space by a rocket
(at 9.8 m/s2). Thus he formulated his principle of equivalence of
gravitational and inertial acceleration (EGIA). However, Einstein
analyzed gravity and its effects subjectivistically, placing
observers in accelerated states or in free fall relative to other
observers and considering how their measurements would differ. He
thus failed to see the objective and physical implications of the
EGIA. Let us instead treat space as a physical entity and presume
that like effects result from like causes. Let us presume that the
accelerating space ship and the Earth-surface observer are both in a
state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial space;
neither being free to return to the natural state of
non-acceleration relative to space. We therefore find that the EGIA
implies that in a gravitational field, inertial space itself is
accelerating towards the gravitational attractor. Indeed, an
inertial space that accelerates radially towards all matter at
GM/r^2 explains the ballistic, mechanical aspects of gravity. Thus
we find that we can improve Newton's theory by transforming his
absolute space from a solid to a liquid; allowing it to flow into
matter like a fluid into a sink. Can such a "flowing" space also
explain the other effects of gravity--such as the red shift of
atomic spectra and the curvature of light? If so, can it be mere
coincidence? " --- Henry H. Lindner
And...
" This flowing space theory, with the entrainment of space which it
implies, specifies the velocity of space at any point near a
celestial body. Assuming that light is propagated at c in space, and
that atomic clocks and atomic spectra are red shifted by their
motion in space, this theory specifies the behavior of light and
atomic clocks at any point, and in any state of motion near a
gravitating body. It specifies the actual space velocity of any
atomic clock. It can thus be compared to all known data and produces
many predictions that are absent from current models. " --- Henry H.
Lindner
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8041/Writings/Space/Physics.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
A hardcore version...
" Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic
physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other
is based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical
substratum. Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach
are reviewed, expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of
General Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in
which energy and momentum take on absolute significance with respect
to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described.
" --- Tom Martin
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
12 Jul 2004 06:59:59 PM |
|
|
In article <LbedndzK4PVvr23dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote:
"Einstein developed this insight, treating gravity as an
accelerational field. He realized that being held stationary in a
gravitational field (as on the Earth's surface) had the same effects
on one's measurements as being accelerated in deep space by a rocket
(at 9.8 m/s2). Thus he formulated his principle of equivalence of
gravitational and inertial acceleration (EGIA). However, Einstein
analyzed gravity and its effects subjectivistically, placing
observers in accelerated states or in free fall relative to other
observers and considering how their measurements would differ. He
thus failed to see the objective and physical implications of the
EGIA. Let us instead treat space as a physical entity and presume
that like effects result from like causes. Let us presume that the
accelerating space ship and the Earth-surface observer are both in a
state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial space;
neither being free to return to the natural state of
non-acceleration relative to space. We therefore find that the EGIA
implies that in a gravitational field, inertial space itself is
accelerating towards the gravitational attractor. Indeed, an
inertial space that accelerates radially towards all matter at
GM/r^2 explains the ballistic, mechanical aspects of gravity. Thus
we find that we can improve Newton's theory by transforming his
absolute space from a solid to a liquid; allowing it to flow into
matter like a fluid into a sink. Can such a "flowing" space also
explain the other effects of gravity--such as the red shift of
atomic spectra and the curvature of light? If so, can it be mere
coincidence? " --- Henry H. Lindner
***{OK, Lauren, you posted the above quote and Lindner isn't here, so
these questions are for you:
(1) If we postulate that "space" flows into masses to explain gravity,
then what do we postulate to explain *why* the "space" flows? Do we
postulate gravity, perhaps? :-)
(2) Where does "space"go after flowing into a mass? Does it flow right
back out again? If water flows out of a bathtub, it does so because the
drain is open. If the drain is plugged, or if there is no drain, then it
doesn't flow out. Do you claim that there are drains in masses through
which inflows of "space" can drain out?
(3) If the "space" doesn't drain out, then it must remain in the mass
into which it flowed, right? Therefore, as more and more "space" flows
into a mass, the pressure difference causing the flow ought to become
less and less, right? And eventually, the pressure should equalize,
right? In other words, as time passes the gravity of a massive body
ought to become less and less, until it eventually falls to zero, right?
If satisfactory answers to the above questions cannot be found, then the
"space flow" theory of gravity is in ruins, is it not?
--Mitchell Jones}***
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
12 Jul 2004 10:11:32 PM |
|
|
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-2A3F4E.19022512072004@chiapp18.algx.net...
In article <LbedndzK4PVvr23dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote:
"Einstein developed this insight, treating gravity as an
accelerational field. He realized that being held stationary in
a
gravitational field (as on the Earth's surface) had the same
effects
on one's measurements as being accelerated in deep space by a
rocket
(at 9.8 m/s2). Thus he formulated his principle of equivalence
of
gravitational and inertial acceleration (EGIA). However,
Einstein
analyzed gravity and its effects subjectivistically, placing
observers in accelerated states or in free fall relative to
other
observers and considering how their measurements would differ.
He
thus failed to see the objective and physical implications of
the
EGIA. Let us instead treat space as a physical entity and
presume
that like effects result from like causes. Let us presume that
the
accelerating space ship and the Earth-surface observer are both
in a
state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial
space;
neither being free to return to the natural state of
non-acceleration relative to space. We therefore find that the
EGIA
implies that in a gravitational field, inertial space itself is
accelerating towards the gravitational attractor. Indeed, an
inertial space that accelerates radially towards all matter at
GM/r^2 explains the ballistic, mechanical aspects of gravity.
Thus
we find that we can improve Newton's theory by transforming his
absolute space from a solid to a liquid; allowing it to flow
into
matter like a fluid into a sink. Can such a "flowing" space also
explain the other effects of gravity--such as the red shift of
atomic spectra and the curvature of light? If so, can it be mere
coincidence? " --- Henry H. Lindner
***{OK, Lauren, you posted the above quote and Lindner isn't here,
so
these questions are for you:
(1) If we postulate that "space" flows into masses to explain
gravity,
then what do we postulate to explain *why* the "space" flows? Do
we
postulate gravity, perhaps? :-)
(2) Where does "space"go after flowing into a mass? Does it flow
right
back out again? If water flows out of a bathtub, it does so
because the
drain is open. If the drain is plugged, or if there is no drain,
then it
doesn't flow out. Do you claim that there are drains in masses
through
which inflows of "space" can drain out?
(3) If the "space" doesn't drain out, then it must remain in the
mass
into which it flowed, right? Therefore, as more and more "space"
flows
into a mass, the pressure difference causing the flow ought to
become
less and less, right? And eventually, the pressure should
equalize,
right? In other words, as time passes the gravity of a massive
body
ought to become less and less, until it eventually falls to zero,
right?
If satisfactory answers to the above questions cannot be found,
then the
"space flow" theory of gravity is in ruins, is it not?
--Mitchell Jones}***
[snip]
"Gravitation is the centripetal pressure of all the photons in
the cosmos flowing into vortical centres. Gravitic centres are
located by phase and frequency, and the material which gravitates to
each field centre in the cosmos is selected by phase/frequency
tuning. As a consequence, all planets and stars are not created of
the same kinds of material in the same recipe. Phase tuning is a
function of particle velocity/momentum; the geometry describing the
phase/frequency tuning of gravitic field centres yields the very
same results as the established equations based on mistaken or
limited concepts...
[...]
Now, if you wonder why only the centripetal phase of the radial
electromagnetic wave produces a gravitic acceleration, it is because
all the matter in this cosmos is defined by vibrating in tune with
the centripetal phase of the ambient electromagnetic radiation; all
matter tuned to the centrifugal phase can be regarded as antimatter,
and it has long gone over the event horizon to its proper
antigravitic centres in the hyperspacial antipodes. When seen from
the converse perspective, all the material gravitating in our part
of the cosmos has antigravitated from the opposite hemihypersphere.
A third view sees radiation from here condensing into gravitating
material in the hyperantipodes, and radiation from there condensing
into gravitating material at this side of the universe, to keep the
universe unfolding as it should.
Gravity accelerates all bodies equally because gravitic
pressure is produced only by photons tuned to massive, nuclear
particles. Nuclear particles are as minute in atomic space as stars
relative to galactic space; the infinitesmally fine gravitic photons
penetrate all material bodies like breeze through a fishnet to
strike every nuclear particle with about the same accelerating
force. Moreover, all protons and neutrons have the same dimensions,
so all matter is accelerated equally by gravitic pressure. A
sufficiently massive body, however, will stop enough gravitic waves
to cast a gravitic shadow in the lee. It is the gravitic shadow
cast by the Moon that allows the tides to rise, not any inexplicable
attraction from the Moon." --- Thomas Pawles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
12 Jul 2004 09:54:51 PM |
|
|
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-2A3F4E.19022512072004@chiapp18.algx.net...
In article <LbedndzK4PVvr23dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote:
"Einstein developed this insight, treating gravity as an
accelerational field. He realized that being held stationary in
a
gravitational field (as on the Earth's surface) had the same
effects
on one's measurements as being accelerated in deep space by a
rocket
(at 9.8 m/s2). Thus he formulated his principle of equivalence
of
gravitational and inertial acceleration (EGIA). However,
Einstein
analyzed gravity and its effects subjectivistically, placing
observers in accelerated states or in free fall relative to
other
observers and considering how their measurements would differ.
He
thus failed to see the objective and physical implications of
the
EGIA. Let us instead treat space as a physical entity and
presume
that like effects result from like causes. Let us presume that
the
accelerating space ship and the Earth-surface observer are both
in a
state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial
space;
neither being free to return to the natural state of
non-acceleration relative to space. We therefore find that the
EGIA
implies that in a gravitational field, inertial space itself is
accelerating towards the gravitational attractor. Indeed, an
inertial space that accelerates radially towards all matter at
GM/r^2 explains the ballistic, mechanical aspects of gravity.
Thus
we find that we can improve Newton's theory by transforming his
absolute space from a solid to a liquid; allowing it to flow
into
matter like a fluid into a sink. Can such a "flowing" space also
explain the other effects of gravity--such as the red shift of
atomic spectra and the curvature of light? If so, can it be mere
coincidence? " --- Henry H. Lindner
***{OK, Lauren, you posted the above quote and Lindner isn't here,
so
these questions are for you:
(1) If we postulate that "space" flows into masses to explain
gravity,
then what do we postulate to explain *why* the "space" flows? Do
we
postulate gravity, perhaps? :-)
Electromotive force?
(2) Where does "space"go after flowing into a mass? Does it flow
right
back out again? If water flows out of a bathtub, it does so
because the
drain is open. If the drain is plugged, or if there is no drain,
then it
doesn't flow out. Do you claim that there are drains in masses
through
which inflows of "space" can drain out?
Good one.
Each particle has a black hole, information is sucked into black
holes, then re-appears as dark matter or quantum matter (space).
[Klein, Hawking]
(3) If the "space" doesn't drain out, then it must remain in the
mass
into which it flowed, right? Therefore, as more and more "space"
flows
into a mass, the pressure difference causing the flow ought to
become
less and less, right? And eventually, the pressure should
equalize,
right? In other words, as time passes the gravity of a massive
body
ought to become less and less, until it eventually falls to zero,
right?
If satisfactory answers to the above questions cannot be found,
then the
"space flow" theory of gravity is in ruins, is it not?
--Mitchell Jones}***
[snip]
"Material particles are created where the photonic field
constituting empty space collapses into atomic vorteces. Fluid
vorteces, therefore, must manifest the physical properties of
material. It is the density gradient of the photonic vortex
surrounding material particles that bends light rays. If you inspect
a vortex in your bath tub, you will see for yourself that it
refracts the light it transmits to cast both a bright spot and a
shadow on the bottom of the tub. A whorl comprising a hologram is a
standing-wave vortex, and you can see for yourself that it also
bends light to produce bright spots and shadows. A vortex manifests
the inertia of its spin, and inertia is the definitive physical
property of a material particle. Mass is nothing but a measurement
of gyroscopic inertia. Physics students can prove in ten minutes
that vortex equations are equivalent to field and matter equations.
Since a hologram is defined by vorteces and since particles are
vorteces, the universal hologram is a cosmic compound vortex that
defines itself by the very waves it transmits. As particles bend
light to focal points, and radiant energy condenses into particles
at focal points, all the particles in the universal hologram
literally procreate all the particles in the universal hologram.
Continuous movements throughout the universe produce continuously
changing focal points so that all material particles move
continuously as they grow and decompose back to radiant energy." --
Thomas Pawles
.
|
|
|
| User: "luke" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
13 Jul 2004 01:28:11 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message news:<Apudnb-EF7ju0m7dRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-2A3F4E.19022512072004@chiapp18.algx.net...
In article <LbedndzK4PVvr23dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote:
[...]
matter like a fluid into a sink. Can such a "flowing" space also
explain the other effects of gravity--such as the red shift of
atomic spectra and the curvature of light? If so, can it be mere
coincidence? " --- Henry H. Lindner
***{OK, Lauren, you posted the above quote and Lindner isn't here,
so
these questions are for you:
(1) If we postulate that "space" flows into masses to explain
gravity,
then what do we postulate to explain *why* the "space" flows? Do
we
postulate gravity, perhaps? :-)
Electromotive force?
Inconsistent with your previous posts. E&M forces are "after" those
of the space-time fluid.. i.e. we try to use space-time to describe
electromotive force, not the other way around.
(2) Where does "space"go after flowing into a mass? Does it flow
right
back out again? If water flows out of a bathtub, it does so
because the
drain is open. If the drain is plugged, or if there is no drain,
then it
doesn't flow out. Do you claim that there are drains in masses
through
which inflows of "space" can drain out?
Good one.
Each particle has a black hole, information is sucked into black
holes, then re-appears as dark matter or quantum matter (space).
[Klein, Hawking]
You are really grasping at straws here. Bringing an even more
abstract quantity (information) into play is a diversion technique.
Introducing other concepts that are beyond the current understanding
(black hole centers, dark matter) is not an answer.
Aethrons (space atoms) do not flow into masses and dissappear down a
wormhole. Rather, some of their properties (related to metric tensor)
are changed by a mass, and these changes diffuse away from the mass.
(3) If the "space" doesn't drain out, then it must remain in the
mass
into which it flowed, right? Therefore, as more and more "space"
flows
into a mass, the pressure difference causing the flow ought to
become
less and less, right? And eventually, the pressure should
equalize,
right? In other words, as time passes the gravity of a massive
body
ought to become less and less, until it eventually falls to zero,
right?
If satisfactory answers to the above questions cannot be found,
then the
"space flow" theory of gravity is in ruins, is it not?
--Mitchell Jones}***
Good points Mitchell!
[snip]
"Material particles are created where the photonic field
constituting empty space collapses into atomic vorteces.
[snip handwaving]
Lots of good ideas Laurent, thanks.. good luck putting them together
in a more coherent form!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 01:17:35 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ccp43d$hlt$4@titan.btinternet.com...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
[snip]
Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
Thereby proving you to be quite stupid.
Go away and learn to count your marbles, remembering to stop when
you
reach 2.
Franz
Here! You too, get updated!
Material space or what is expanding in Alan Guth's Inflationary
Universe is not the same as free space. How could we say that empty
space may be curved? Because it isn't really empty space, it is
filled with quantum matter (CMBR, ZPR, EMR, dark matter), and space
curvature (or gravity) can be easily explained by Space Flow
theories. They also can explain why all objects fall at the same
rate.
But you probably wouldn't understand what Guth means by a 'false
vaccum'.
Gravitation as a pressure force: a scalar ether theory
http://geo.hmg.inpg.fr/arminjon/PIR96_1B.pdf
General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I. Absolute Relativistic
Dynamics
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0006029
The California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (CIPA) is
dedicated to exploring fundamental problems in physics (e.g.
gravitation, inertia, the nature of mass) as well as very-long range
technological possibilities that may emerge from the properties of
the quantum vacuum.
http://www.calphysics.org/index.html
If people frequently asked any questions about the CMB, then these
might be among them!
http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html
What Is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation?
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/2.html
Paul J. Steinhardt - Department of Physics, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ
http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/
Quintessence - Cosmologists have proposed that a mysterious
substance called quintessence can explain why our universe is
accelerating. But what is it made of?
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/11/8
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 01:47:52 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
[snip]
| Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
| continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
Not exactly. The only way to reconcile this across the systems of units is
to postulate that vacuum fermionic charge exists. Then vacuum inductance
and capacitance can exist. So in natural units of hbar = c = 1, we still
have the ratio of,
c = sqrt(Cvac/Lvac) = 1 since |Cvac| = |Lvac| = lambda/2pi in those units.
In cgs, it is the same ratio but Cvac = lambda/2pi and Lvac =
lambda/2pi*c^2.
In SI, Cvac = 2*eps0*lambda and Lvac = mu0*lambda/8pi^2. Make the
replacements and you get,
c = 4pi*sqrt(eps0/mu0) in cgs and 1/4pi*eps0 = 1 in cgs so to convert to SI,
c = 4pi*sqrt(eps0/mu0)(1/4pi*eps0) = 1/sqrt(eps0*mu0) in SI.
So we can see that the simple postulation of vacuum fermionic charge retains
the duality ratio of EM across these systems of units. The result of that
duality ratio is always c. You can make eps0 and mu0 disappear in SI by
using Cvac and Lvac.
c = (lambda/2pi)(1/sqrt(Cvac*Lvac)) and we know that,
w = 1/sqrt(C*L), with w being angular frequency, so...
c = lambda*w/2pi
QED
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 04:29:39 PM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2larttFaqet8U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
[snip]
| Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
| continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
Not exactly. The only way to reconcile this across the systems of
units is
to postulate that vacuum fermionic charge exists. Then vacuum
inductance
and capacitance can exist.
In other words, if you ascribe some physical properties to the
classical vacuum, right?
Vacuum inductance and capacitance are fundamental properties of
Nature and will continue to be regardless of the units we use. We
may, voluntarily or involuntarily, choose to ignore them, but they
still will continue to affect how matter behaves.
--
Laurent
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
10 Jul 2004 08:04:48 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:2qWdnctET5q6_G3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2larttFaqet8U1@uni-berlin.de...
| > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
| > [snip]
| > | Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios will
| > | continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
| >
| > Not exactly. The only way to reconcile this across the systems of
| units is
| > to postulate that vacuum fermionic charge exists. Then vacuum
| inductance
| > and capacitance can exist.
|
| In other words, if you ascribe some physical properties to the
| classical vacuum, right?
Sure. But then we have to call it the quantum vacuum I suppose.
| Vacuum inductance and capacitance are fundamental properties of
| Nature and will continue to be regardless of the units we use. We
| may, voluntarily or involuntarily, choose to ignore them, but they
| still will continue to affect how matter behaves.
The really important thing here is that vacuum charge = +,- sqrt(hbar*c) in
cgs units. If that is true then it is easy to see how it works in all
systems of units and is *completely* self-consistent. Anyone that argues
that one system of units is better than another is just plain full of it.
Some systems are better for some things and some are better for other
things.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "Laurent" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
11 Jul 2004 09:04:06 AM |
|
|
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2lbi0lFaklunU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:2qWdnctET5q6_G3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2larttFaqet8U1@uni-berlin.de...
| > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
| > [snip]
| > | Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios
will
| > | continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
| >
| > Not exactly. The only way to reconcile this across the
systems of
| units is
| > to postulate that vacuum fermionic charge exists. Then vacuum
| inductance
| > and capacitance can exist.
|
| In other words, if you ascribe some physical properties to the
| classical vacuum, right?
Sure. But then we have to call it the quantum vacuum I suppose.
I rather call it the relativistic aether or inertial space. Quantum
foam grows from it, like in Alan Guth's Inflationary Universe.
Because inertial space and quantum matter are two different things,
Guth is able to say that there could be an infinite number of
universes, like bubbles forming in water.
That's why I strongly recommend reading Timothy Boyer's 'The
Classical Vacuum'
[From Scientific American, August 1985, pp 70-78.]
--
Laurent
| Vacuum inductance and capacitance are fundamental properties of
| Nature and will continue to be regardless of the units we use.
We
| may, voluntarily or involuntarily, choose to ignore them, but
they
| still will continue to affect how matter behaves.
The really important thing here is that vacuum charge = +,-
sqrt(hbar*c) in
cgs units. If that is true then it is easy to see how it works in
all
systems of units and is *completely* self-consistent. Anyone that
argues
that one system of units is better than another is just plain full
of it.
Some systems are better for some things and some are better for
other
things.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
11 Jul 2004 02:22:24 PM |
|
|
"Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:B9qdnXo33dl0zGzd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
|
| "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:2lbi0lFaklunU1@uni-berlin.de...
| > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > news:2qWdnctET5q6_G3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
| > |
| > | "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:2larttFaqet8U1@uni-berlin.de...
| > | > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:Qv2dncPp9e7Fz3LdRVn-gw@comcast.com...
| > | > [snip]
| > | > | Permeability and permittivity are ratios, and these ratios
| will
| > | > | continue to be there, regardless of what units we use.
| > | >
| > | > Not exactly. The only way to reconcile this across the
| systems of
| > | units is
| > | > to postulate that vacuum fermionic charge exists. Then vacuum
| > | inductance
| > | > and capacitance can exist.
| > |
| > | In other words, if you ascribe some physical properties to the
| > | classical vacuum, right?
| >
| > Sure. But then we have to call it the quantum vacuum I suppose.
|
|
| I rather call it the relativistic aether or inertial space. Quantum
| foam grows from it, like in Alan Guth's Inflationary Universe.
| Because inertial space and quantum matter are two different things,
| Guth is able to say that there could be an infinite number of
| universes, like bubbles forming in water.
Call it what you wish; I didn't mean to get into a semantic discussion. I
don't know what you mean by "quantum foam *grows* from it"? Sure there
could be an infinite number of "spacetimes" similar to ours. To me, the
Universe would be all of them. But for discussion purposes, let's call our
spacetime the Universe. We already can't even see all of this Universe. It
seems very reasonable to say that our Universe is necessarily defined by
*all* the quantum objects in it. Including and especially the vacuum
quantum objects. Pure classical concepts will not do the job entirely.
Eventually there will be a successful quantum theory of gravity once all the
vacuum quantum objects are known. The problem is we just don't know what
they all are yet. There is an extreme detection problem besides some
fundamental concepts problems.
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MorituriMax" |
|
| Title: Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light |
11 Jul 2004 01:53:42 PM |
|
|
Laurent wrote:
I rather call it the relativistic aether or inertial space. Quantum
foam grows from it, like in Alan Guth's Inflationary Universe.
Because inertial space and quantum matter are two different things,
Guth is able to say | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |