Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether.

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 12/09/04 

Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 02:20:54 GMT

"jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:31pasnF3dkf3jU1@individual.net...
>
> "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.

Ok, so observe, investigate and explain, I look forward to reading
your paper.
As far as I'm concerned, no aether, and the PoR applies to
light.
I've observed the light curves of stars, investigated them and
explained them.
I've investigated Einstein's paper, and found it to be fallacious.
I leave others to pick up the pieces and continue in a scientific
manner to explain other phenomena.

>
> If ya run across something that makes my case instead of
> yours, please pass it on and I do likewise.

 I'm happy to accept the existence of real matter affecting
apparitions. I'd suggest this is a real and unexplained phenomenon
(or at least not explained satisfactorily) that might be worthy of your
investigative powers.
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap020331.html
The first thing to do is put aside any preconceptions.

> It's not about
> who wins the debate but who helps to expose the truth.

I totally agree.

> Well... I mean my version of the truth of course...;-)
> Sue...
Of course :-)
Androcles