Re: new improved facts v011

From: Paulps (paulpsremove_at_freeuk.com)
Date: 03/08/05 

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:27:20 -0000

"jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3956nuF5rn6fkU1@individual.net...
>
> "Paulps" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:1110268421.17954.0@sabbath.news.uk.clara.net...
> >
> > *See Appendix at the end of this post if you have any difficuly in
> > undertanding the context and meaning of words used in this text.*
> >
> > Preferred common dictionary definitions used in this text.
> >
> > From the Oxford paperback Dictonary.
> > Vacuum:- Absence of normal or previous content.
> > Medium:- An agency or means by which something is done.
> > From the Oxford Physics Dictionary
> > Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR):-*Energy* resulting from the
acceleration of
> > electric charge.
> >
> > Some simple provable facts.
> >
> > a) Without something the *energy* of an accelerating charge has nothing
to
> > transfer to.
> > b) The vacuum will support the effects of a changing charge in the form
of
> > EMR..
> > c) Light is EMR requring a supporting medium. What is its supporting
medium
> > if not vacuum? (note:- *if* your answer is nothing please read to end of
> > post before replying)
> > d) The speed of light (SOL) is *currently* observed to be fairly
constant in
> > the medium
> > of *vacuum* and as such is used as a constant.
> > e) The SOL is *independent* of the velocity of the source.
> > f) The SOL is currently always measured at c due to procedural and
equipment
> > limitations (03-03-2005).
> > g) The fact of spectral shift as a product of Doppler shift is proof of
a
> > *velocity* differences in the *vacuum* in the observation process so as
to
> > preserve the constancy of c and energy.
> > h) The observer can from observation of the deviation frequency
(spectral
> > shift) of light with a known frequency, determine *their* velocity with
> > respect to *the* vacuum and *other* sources with respect to *the* vacuum
> > that the light is constant in by a spectrophotometer and computation, in
> > most cases.
> > i) In some cases the effects of what has been called time dilation and
its
> > associated length compression and the gravity gradient need to be
included
> > in the computations but this is a nother kettle of fish not dealt with
in
> > this version.
> > j) Many of the examples posted to this group and in establishment books
fail
> > to take account of the above facts and can be misleading both in concept
and
> > formulation.
>
> I presume when the asterisks around the word vacuum
> are for six of the gazillion imaginary lines of force criss-crossing
> the ( )vacuum( ) between entities. So we get the term
> *vacuum* :-)

No that is the end of the single dimensional point that appears to us as
tetrahedronic base component that *is* the vacuum in our dimension, roughly
but not mathematically that's for latter. But I have not confirmed the
single dimension yet as that down a wormhole and need a lot of mathematical
analysis to confirm and characterise.
If you know of any equations that fit this base please post at your
convenience. I could have SHOUTED but it might be conceived as being rude.
Another clue Onions :-)

> That's close enough.
> Thanks for not drawing all gazillion of them.
>
> Now when someone says you can't measure velocity wrt a
> vacuum, you can point to the one of those lines and locate
> a point on it with 1/r^2 .
>

Good idea but as they might get lost and I'm not shure that 1/r^2 is acurate
enough I'm working on improved version :-)

> Ya might want to investigate what
> astronomers mean by terms like bulk flow and Hubble flow
> keeping in mind how those lines will be moving or
> it sounds like you kinda know ;-)
>
Yea a bit similar. Theirs nothing new in heaven(vacuum) and earth is there
:-)
Might go and investigate the most resent stuff to bring me up to speed if
ever needed. Thanks

> Evaluating your procedure and integrating all
> you statements below is beyond the time
> I can commit but I don't see any glareing problems.
>
Thanks muchly for any input
>
> I see a few things others will glare at. LOL
> Sigh... Kids and there sparks and trains.
>
> Sue...
>

What does LOL mean I did now once but have forgoten?
MY trains the bigest so thar :-)

> >
> > Simplified procedure to determine simplified observer velocity relative
to
> > vacuum:-
> >
> > Find source spectral shift = Ss
> > Find source velocity from Ss to = Sv
> > Find observer rotational velocity = Orv
> > Find observer orbital velocity = Oov
> > Observer velocity relative to the medium of vacuum = c-Sv-Orv-Oov
> > Perform above on three axis.
> > Find vector sum = Velocity of observer relative to vacuum.
> > Find velocity of me relative to vacuum = 0 = a clue
> >
> > This means that the velocity of any observer at a considerable
> > distance from three reference sources may be able to find there
> > velocity relative to the main body of vacuum and this velocity
> > may be different for each observer.
> > This does not mean that in a local sense the measured velocity
> > of light will be other than c as locally matter/particals modifies the
> > velocity
> > of the vacuum in its vicinity as does a magnetic field and gravity
> > which are themselves a byproduce of matter which is itself a
> > product of modulated vacuum.
> >
> > Speculation:-
> >
> > The characteristics and coefficient of a vacuum are very small and
> > can probable be worked out from cosmic red shift (CRS), entropy and
orbital
> > decay etc although any cosmic expansion found may have to be factored
in.
> > If the coefficient of vacuum was zero EMR would have no brakes and its
> > velocity would be infinite.
> > I may have come across this in relation to zero point energy although
> > I think it most probable that what we see as zero Kelvin is in fact an
> > offset from a
> > base that may not yet have been detected. Some of the reasoning behind
this
> > view
> > is that to modulate a charge onto vacuum with more than one half cycle
you
> > need
> > an offset otherwise you cannot produce a negative half cycle.
> > The modulation being by contraction/dilation of the vacuum which is
pointed
> > to on
> > a larger scale by the Lorenz transforms and the Space-time gravity of
> > Einstein
> > although some tweaking of the formulas used maybe
> > reqired to improve their accuracy in some cases.
> >
> > Additional information:-
> >
> > 1) The velocity and spectral frequency of the source can be determined
by
> > observing a binary pair or a single star from a point on the earth that
> > doesn't contribute
> > any additional velocity to the observation (or the earth motion can be
> > calculated out). Once the velocity and spectral frequencies have been
> > determined for the source and with the knowledge that the SOL in vacuum
is
> > known and that the SOL is independent of the source. The spectral shift
due
> > to the earth's motion will allow you to calculate the earth's velocity
in
> > relation to the vacuum in the vicinity of the observation in which the
> > light travelled and with some confidence all the way back to the source.
> > 2) The argument that light shows particle characteristic in some cases
> > does not disprove the fact that light is a wave function in a medium it
just
> > demonstrates the similarity of wave functions to particles, in some
cases.
> > 3) Particles are themselves a more complex form of wave function in the
> > medium of vacuum but with characteristics modified by their complexity,
one
> > characteristic being ballistic. To characterise particles and their
actions
> > is a complex business prone to error and can be very expensive and
> > not included in this version .
> > 4) If you have any commonly used equations that you feel are central to
> > your belief that demand an absence of a medium for EMR, please post
> > and I will try and work it through with you.
> > 5) If you have any trouble with these facts please post details and
> > references.
> > 6) Anybody that thinks they know what the characteristics of a vacuum
are,
> > please post as it will save me working it out.:-)
> >
> > Appendix:- I have forgotten some of the needed edits so you will have
to
> > remind by being iritating again pl;ease bring up points with my replise
> > thanks.
> >
> > :-) Paul. Kept hanging on hoping somebody would get a clue but have had
to
> > resort to division in the version numbers so now you might have to
suffer
> > many more posts from me. Ha Ha
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Improved facts
    ... >> a result of relative motion between the source and the observer. ... >> of vacuum and as such is used as a constant. ... >> c) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source with respect ... If a volume of gas has only three particles, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • New improved fact v0132
    ... character would be displayed.The view that EMR is a wave in a vacuum is both ... No facts have yet been presented that successfully dispute this view and the ... velocity's within a given medium this does not mean that if the medium ... changes the velocity will not change. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: new improved facts v011
    ... > that the light is constant in by a spectrophotometer and computation, ... I presume when the asterisks around the word vacuum ... > Simplified procedure to determine simplified observer velocity relative to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • new improved facts v011
    ... if not vacuum? ... e) The SOL is *independent* of the velocity of the source. ... that the light is constant in by a spectrophotometer and computation, ... Simplified procedure to determine simplified observer velocity relative to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • new improved facts v012
    ... Light is EMR requiring a supporting medium. ... if not vacuum? ... e) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source. ... Simplified procedure to determine simplified observer velocity relative to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)