Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether.
From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Previous message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:42:51 -0500
"Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message news:PoJtd.134936$38.12621@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:31ofkeF3dgpg1U1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> > news:y%vtd.113535$F7.31111@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> |
> > A: That's why you can't get away with an inverse square law.
> >
> > I think you meant cubed from you PoV. Anyway
> > we are on the same page.
> >
> > Trouble shooting PDE's that I barely understand
> > isn't my idea of how one should spend a sunny day
> > but the plots at:
> > http://www.ee.psu.edu/grimes/antennas/oldbreakthrough.htm
> > gave me an idea.
> >
> > Is is possible that the rotating nulls of CP have
> > mislead theorists to assume E/H far-field is
> > 50/50 ?
>
> Anything is possible in this game, since the jury is still out.
> I doubt it is worth answering every single point anyone makes.
>
>
>
> >
> > If you identify the H component only as something
> > 90 degress to the E component then you will always
> > get a 50/50 ratio for CP.
> >
> > Further, some literature I read recently was making
> > some kind of case for predominate E plane propagation
> > at lower (sub visible ? ) frequencies. There is no
> > mechanism in free space to cause such an effect but
> > the fact that visible light is usually a CP atomic emission
> > might create the illusion for someone without the time domain
> > modeling capability.
> >
> > Further still, It is puzzling why a bright chap like
> > Feynman, given his disdain for "duality" wouldn't
> > simply latch right on to the concept of E plane
> > only in the far vacuum field. It is the ideal mechanism
> > for his sum over histories. What was he considering
> > that would disuade him from offering a mechanism
> > he surely had insight to ?
> >
> Like I said, I want simplicity first. Ya need square up stone
> blocks before ya can build an ediface with gargoyles on top.
>
> All that complicated stuff you keep talking about is too hard for
> teaching. Sometimes ya gotta realize a forest is nothing but trees.
Unfortunately, most of the visible light we have to access to begins
life as a CP wave and that little complexity isn't the fault of any
overly complex theory, It is just how atoms like to sing.
So E plane only propagatioin is actually one less dimension that
your building blocks need.
It's a two edge sword. CP may hold a mechanism we haven't
considered for the E and H fields to regenerate each other in
free space, or it may reveal a flaw where traditional
measurement techniques can't discriminate the E and H fields.
If ya run across something that makes my case instead of
yours, please pass it on and I do likewise. It's not about
who wins the debate but who helps to expose the truth.
Well... I mean my version of the truth of course...;-)
Sue...
>
> Androcles
>
> > Sue...
> >
> >
> >
>
>
- Next message: Eugene Shubert: "Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory"
- Previous message: Thomas Clarke: "Re: evidence for the existence of the ether"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|