New improved fact v0132
From: PSVacuum (paulpsremove_at_freeuk.com)
Date: 03/19/05
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Twin paradox"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:11:03 -0000
The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for use in
cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position is that
the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
supporting is in fact incorrect as this view would indicate a particle
characteristic which would show a ballistic character for EMR which it
clearly does not. Moving standing waves are normal viewed as particles and
as the fields must have mass if viewed as a particles then again ballistic
character would be displayed.The view that EMR is a wave in a vacuum is both
the simplest and rational answer and supported by the facts.
As it seems necessary to explain to some posters to this group that E=Mc^2
is = to M=E/c^2 I have included it in this issue for clarity. An example of
M=E/c^2 is the case of an atom with a valency being subject to EMR of a
suitable frequency. The atom absorbs the EMR and so the mass of the atom
increases until the valence is filled up and the overflow exceeds a certain
value when a packet of EMR is released which is the base of Quantum
Mechanics.
Uncertainty principles have been brought in to predict the occurrence of
events such as this as actual measurement is very difficult
If there is any kinetic energy transferred to the atom under observation
during the absorption and retransmission of the EMR then this represents the
ballistic component of the EMR used, if any.
No facts have yet been presented that successfully dispute this view and the
view that EMR is a self contained construction is both strange and has no
parallels in physics so unless further experimental data is presented the
Chair finds its case proven.
On revue I find some additional facts that I had forgotten which I will
address below.
Analysis of ballistic characteristics.
1b)A solid in a liquid 2b) A liquid in a gas 3b) A gas in a vacuum 4b)
energy in a vacuum
Their common characteristic is that they all maintain their original vector
unless acted on by an external effect but they *can* posses different
velocity's within a given medium this does not mean that if the medium
changes the velocity will not change.
Analysis of wave characteristics.
1w)A solid in a liquid 2w) A liquid in a gas 3w) A gas in a vacuum 4w) wave
energy in a vacuum
Their common characteristic is that they all maintain their original vector
unless acted on by an external effect but they *cannot* posses different
velocity's within a given medium. this does not mean that if the medium
changes the velocity will not change.
The conclusion from this is that all effects may have a changeable
proportion of ballistic and wave characteristics depending on the pertaining
conditions and that all effects need a real medium to operate in and that
energy is both the medium and effect.
So without the enegy of the vacuum which all things in our universe are
construts of their would be no our universe.
Even an imaginary math construct needs the medium of a brain to operate in.
A further conclusion is that if you have no brain to operate a math
construct in then your math construct will decay over time having no
supporting medium
Some simple simplified provable facts.
a) The speed of light (SOL) is constant in vacuum and is used as a constant.
b) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source.
c) The fact of spectral shift as a product of Doppler shift is proof of
velocity differences in the vacuum in the observation process so as to
preserve the constancy of c and energy. To do this a state change is requred
at the source and observer boundry with the vacuum.
d) 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 by a
spectrophotometer and computation, in most cases. (note:- see cosmology)
e) 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.
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 local 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/particles 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.
What are the brakes and what are they made of. ? I dont think this has been
clearly explained by your education?.
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.(note:- see new double slit experiment.)
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 required to
improve their accuracy in some cases and their application may be in error
again in some cases.
To be able to view solids from a one dimensional perspective it seems to
require at least 4 spatial dimensions plus one of time and one of duration
as a bare minimum, interrogating the state of matter may require more.
Something somebody said suggests that to evalute anything accuratly you need
three frames at least, the source frame, the vacuum/medium frame and the
observer frame.If you discard the middle one your understanding of events
may be limited.
Additional information:-
1) The spectral frequency of the source 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 is 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.:-)
7) Possible aids to basic math model of field line stucture in vacuum :-
7a)
Quantum cells = +,- sqrt(hbar*c)
in cgs units; +,- sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) for the
SI :-7b attenuation of 1/d^2 + state boundry at (G ????)
These will I hope be fully be expanded to the full base equations for
vacuum-space during the development of this text.
If there are any assignments that breach convention please advise.
Under construction.
*unity contruction*
D= unity: U = this universe : P = position : D and U don't normal need to be
specified as cross unities and universe calculations are not commonly
calculated.
Define variables : number of per frame to component level.
Spatial = 4 = : Axis = 6 : Duration = 1 :Time =1
VacuumD(U(P(x(s(s1,s2,s3,s4),a(a1,a2,a3,a4),d,t),y(s(s1,s2,s3,s4,a(a1,a2,a3,
a4),d,t),z(s(s1,s2,s3,s4),a(a1,a2,a3.a4),d,t))))
*Field line construction*
Sub component level
Imaginary mathematical structure to predict the products of change.
Characterise vacuum to carry change through and in space
develop to spheroid volume
Start
Spatial = 4 = : Axis = 6 : Duration = 1 :Time =1
: axis may only be a major function in partical spin
Input parms
ie = energy is = spatial ia=axis it= time
Output parms
oe = energy os = spatial oa=axis it = time
: the duration factor du needs to be a function of the 4 spacials so that in
highly compressed matter time would appear to run slower could the constant
for this be G ? any body got a link to the proof of this constant
Anybody like to do the rest as I'm slowing down a bit, any syntax errors?
:-)
Appendix:-
The point here is that a vacuum is a relative commodity.
Vacuum refers to vacuum-nspace an entity that invades everything and exists
even as particles in a modulated form.
Its basic mathematical quality is sub Planck, tetrohydronik and on which all
energy events are modulated. Its simplified definition is correct all though
this text and can be expaned beyond any current defintion.
I have forgotten some of the needed edits so you will have to remind me
again please bring up points with my replies thanks.
Notes:-
See for street view of thread postings.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity
For refences see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html#isqe
and
http://departments.weber.edu/physics/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/weber.html
If there are any refs you think I have forgotten and should
be included in above please email as below as the above
list is dynamic.
The hall of fame/infamy below is not meant to imply
that those mentioned agree or disagree with any of
the facts or views expressed in this post.
No precedence is meant to be implied by the order
of the listings.
If you wish for any edits to this list please email.
paulpsremove@freeuk.com removing remove.
Credits to :-
Sue Jahn, Bill Hobba, Tom Roberts,Bilge, Dirk, dlzc, PD & sycophantic Co,
Neutral to be allocated
Debits to:-
PSVacuum(Questioner(Thanks Paulps))
If you are a follower don't follow me as I may crash and burn at any moment.
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Twin paradox"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: New improved fact v0132"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
