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 18:04:14 GMT

"jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:31q4s1F3eml5tU1@individual.net...
>
> "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
> news:aEOtd.136627$38.56632@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "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.
>
> Material winds can be just as effective as ether winds.

Of course. That is why you'll blow MMX off course with
a wind speed of 67,000 mph = 0.0001c. You'll also blow
poor Michelson into orbit, shredded. It may not do his optical
bench much good, either, but at least it proves theory.

>
>> 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.
>
> Powers!? ROFL Common sense more common
> that most perhaps.
>
>> http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap020331.html
>> The first thing to do is put aside any preconceptions.
>
> Hmmm those rings look a little like
> http://www.ee.psu.edu/grimes/antennas/oldbreakthrough.htm

I thought it might intrigue you. I saw the similarity to, but I'd
be more inclined to say
http://www.ee.psu.edu/grimes/antennas/oldbreakthrough.htm
looks a little like SN1987A's rings.

> "...they are probably in 3 different planes"
>
> I wonder if the big ones could have opposite charges.

I wonder if there is an intervening solidified crystal of frozen
hydrogen (it's cold in space) between us and the star. That way
we get some nice diffraction patterns. No? Oh, well, just wondering. :-)
When someone says
"I think it is, therefore it is, and I've got a Ph.D. to prove it. "
you are suppose to agree. That's how science is done, at least
in this group.

> The adopion of Ritz theoery alone doesn't explain our
> experience

True. As I said, the jury is still out. Getting them to even
listen to the evidence is bloody hard enough, they've got
preconceived ideas and want to advocate those. They won't
shut up and listen for change.
Most human experience is within the confines of matter, so
the concept of "nothing" is anathema to "common" sense.

> but matter on the path and a permittivity that
> decreases as permeability increase (the OTHER Poynting
> vectors ) just might come a lot closer. It leaves the
> possibilty of fast paths but confines them to sparcely
> populated regions (I think <o) )

To say "nothing" has properties is anathema to me. One
may as well speak of the bouyancy of a dirigible in orbit,
or the speed of sound on the moon. Permittivity and permeability
are indeed properties, but have no meaning except for matter.
They are used as aether properties, and aether was only ever needed
in the mind of man as a medium for the conveyance of waves.
By allowing the two waves of electric and magnetic fields to be
the medium for the conveyance of constant energy, the aether
becomes redundant and so do its properties.
How EM radiation interacts with matter is not my province.
Rather I would dwell upon what matter actually is. Our means
of detecting it is solely by the measure of force, whether
we fall or press our fingertips together. The elements are made
of matter, undeniably. But what is matter? What "stuff" is an
 electron made of? What is charge? Again, our only means of
detecting it is by the measurement of force. Newton (and all
others, I suppose) pondered upon action at a distance, yet it
seems to me that this action at a distance is the fundamental
basis of all physics. Ask not what causes masses to attract,
but what causes "attract" to become mass.

> Sue...
>>
>>
>> > 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"
    ... The previous posting showed ("A Basic Look at the Aether") that the ... because we are located within the Aether and it permeates all matter. ... we can never actually observe it. ... existing physicle laws remain intact while perdicting the velocity of c is a ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... Material means consisting of matter. ... Let's then ask the simple question: By these definitions, is aether ... a concept involving 'rest mass' as applied to it. ... equations that do not represent continuum mechanics processes ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Atheistic Maxwellian: Hannes Alfven
    ... Plasma fluid is also gross matter, unlike aether fluid, about ... they turn around and deny God in it. ... 13 And all things are spiritual in nature, even unto me, saith the Lord God ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dayton Millers Data have no Real Signal
    ... Newton wrote them down on paper, he did not invent the laws of physics. ... If matter has an attribute that is hidden, then how would we know about ... >>A quantum Aether unit has a distance between unbound Aether units of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Fields in Vacuum
    ... Professors Wheeler and Smith, ... anisotropy of space and anisotropy of time measurement in space. ... I maintain that there is anisotropy of time measurement in aether, ... Eternal Duration of Matter ...
    (soc.culture.jewish)