Re: Through a glass darkly

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 18:01:55 -0500

"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:1111787069.83110.0@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>
> | > | End clip in
> | > | --------------
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | The *fact* AFAIK is the Ewald-Oseen extinciton distance. This is
> the
> | > | > | part of the path where the frequeny shift, to which you refer,
> occurs.
> | > | > |
> | > | >
>
> This is just a red herring as of course the change in medium needs to be
> taken into account but the shift is not only due to the change in medium,
> part of it is due to velocity differences? and how is the shift generated by
> the source red herringed ?

Every charge along the path act just like a traffic cop. Some better than others.
Plasma puts the strong arm on it. ;-)
Slow light for the dielectric gets speeded up; fast light gets slowed down.

The light tries to bump the charges around and the charges fight back
with their inertial mass.

After the light traverses the extincion distance, the interaction is minimal.

>
>
> | > |
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html
> | > |
> | > | I see blue sky or red sky. I have no delusions that the cornea of my
> eye
> | > | is playing tricks on me or that the sun is responsible for the
> spectral
> | > chanes.
> | > | With few if any *measurements* we can make resonable inferences that
> | > | the upper atmosphere is the culprit in the illusion.
> | >
> | > Uh! your off on a siding to my meaning. The SOL in independent of the
> | > velocity of the source ?
> |
> | Probably not, for short paths.
>
> Ugg! are you now shifting to a variable for SOL ?
No... Rembemer the disclaimer paragraph I posted.
The near field space is dominated by the coupling structure.
(See Maxwell's equations: Advanced and retarded potentials.)
E and H plane energy division is different in the near field.
Motion of the structure wrt neighboring matter alters the
isotropy of the 2D wave impedance.

A torpedo swims out of it's tube with the addition
of the ships motion. It soon forgets the ships motion
and adds it's velocity to the sea currents.

The submarine's speed is added directly to the
torpedo's speed for a 2 meter range.

Paths this short are not popular with railroad engineers
or submarine skippers.

 Zealotry about the constant speed of
light can conceal the mechanism that reconciles the
two postulates of SR.

> |
> | I though we were on the shift generated by velocity
> | > of source not pretty sky's.
> |
> | That was not the point. We identified the place in the
> | path where the distortion ocuurs.
> |
> Are you now at the atmospher boundry? see above

Sigh... The two GPS frequencies demonstrate this effect.
Again, we don't blame it on glaucoma or shakey satellites.

>
> | You are stating that the shift in an emitter's line spectra occurs
> | early in the path... and I agree.
> |
>
> Good and it also appears due to velocity differences in the earth after
> calculating out Ewald-Oseen

Astronomers use extinction distance too. Sometimes in light years.

>
>
> | We can debate
>
>
> |
> | No... we can't debate because I just agreed. ;-)
>
> No you didnt agree that shift also happened at earth atmospher boundry not
> due to Ewald-Oseen agree or take smack on bum. ?:-)

There was no extinction effect at issue. Red and blue sky is scattering
and absorbtion effects. The sun's apparent postion on the horizon is
an extinction effect. Most prefer the term refraction because of the
pencil in water demonstration but both depend on the index of
refraction (dielectric properties) changing.

>
> | joining the Ghurkas ?
> |
>
> I got dicharged I was to nasty they said :-)
A likely story. LOL
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > | So... ? You definition of vacuum seems different that PD's
> | > definition.
> | > | >
> | > | > | Should we be surprised ?
> | > | >
> | > | > Perhaps not Sigh.............
> | > | >
> | > | [snip /n]
> | > |
> | > | > | > there seems a wilful degree of misinterpretation or is it just
> that
> | > I'm
> | > | > | > trying to get a fairly obscure but important point across?
> | > |
> | > | The point is not as obscure as you may think. AE's "black box"
> | > | approach to the ether may obscure your concept. It was quite
> | > | intentional. He wanted to break with the notion of an absolute
> | > | or Cartesian latticework that some *creator* might establish.
> | >
> | > Phut! Phut! :-) I don't have an 'absolute or Cartesian latticework' and
> I
> | > find Minkowski through to QED a bit restrictive although I'm looking at
> | > integrating some of QED in my conseptulization.
> |
> | QED works good. Just remember it makes a few assumptions that
> | can only be justified by "shut up and calculate".
> |
>
> Ye them bit is what I dont like
>
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | You are interchanging the words vacuum and medium when you
> probably
> | > | > | need the term ether.
> | > | >
> | > | > No I don't that's what they give you at the dentist to put you out
> do
> | > you
> | > | > think I cant read a dictionary or something:-)
> | > | > From my Oxford paper back my preferred definition of vacuum is
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | ' Absence of normal or previous content'
> | > |
> | > | and the Oxford physics is'
> | > |
> | > | 'A space in which there is a low pressure of gas etc'
> | > |
> | > | and
> | > | Dr*** wrote:
> | > | they both allow me to extend the definition to a relatively zero state
> | > | that you might wish to test the SOL in
> | > | or construct a particle out of.
> | > |
> | > | So who's piddling with semantics and its not me. I cant extend it the
> | > | way you require as it then becomes conceptually
> | > | limited. Hit me with it again baby if you have a dought.
> | > |
> | > | Sue:
> | > | I don't disagree with the concept or the way you apply it.
> | > | The interpretation of the limiting cases seems the cause for
> | > | disagreement.
> | > |
> | > | You say the vacuum conducts a charge.
> | >
> | > Did I say that? I dont think I did I think that if this is what you are
> | > refering to
> | > clip in
> | > | >I never claimed that the fine structure of the vacuum/ether caused
> the
> | > | > charges to do that but I do claim that after the vacuum/ether has
> been
> | > | > subject to an event that creates the effect of charge then you have
> this
> | > | > effect of repulsion and attraction operating in the vacuum/ether.
> | > clip out
> |
> | OK... that is Einstein's trick. He switches the ether on and off at will
> in SR.
>
> Its no trick and there is no switch on swtch off the vacuum is always on but
> not always as significant. detail when I do this trick?
> |
> | I didn't believe he could do so I probably won't believe you can either.
> ;-)
> |
> See above :-) and my new posting
>
> | > What I say is that the vacuum can be modulated with a charge not conduct
> it,
> | > thats for copper wire etc :-)
> |
> | When my charged comb attracts bits of paper, copper wire is not
> | required.
>
> No but your comb is not a vacuum its made up of particle that can be charged
> and hold charge.
> |
> | >
> | > | I say the charge exerts a force on the envelope.
> | >
> | > We are talking about the bottle here ?
> |
> | Excellent question!
> | Use any means you desire to exclude charges and related lines of
> | force from the region of space under test.
> |
> Ok I have done that and the charges will get through if I push the charges
> up enough to melt the bottle but the lines of force can only be beent out of
> the way by external manetic force so we can get a bottle with nought in it
> in theory anyway point?

Oh? You can *bend* lines of force? Do you also look around corners?

>
> | > Then if so then off top of head I will construct experiment to clarify,
> kick
> | > it to bits if no good.
> | >
> | > Two metal plates 2" apart in bottle of hard vacuum DC output charge geny
> | > connected to plates by wire ok?
> | > Apply say 500 volts = no continuous energy flow but small kick at switch
> on
> | > as field is established.ok ?
> | OK
> | > Electric field in vacuum in bottle ok? Disconnect geny field still up
> but
> | > measuring it may cause it to decay if not very careful ok?
> |
> | Use brightly colored electrons so we can count them. ;-)
>
> No electrons in bottle we have given them to the kids to play with:-)
> |
> | > will decay over
> | > time due to leakage ok?
> |
> | No... what leakage ?
> |
>
> Unless the dilectric is perfect it will leak and a glass bottle is not
> perfect

It is perfect. I have the word of 37 distinguished world leaders.

Ohhh forget the bottle and post "no trespassing" signs in
electroneese.

[snip]
> | >
> | > No but we are talking about field here with the particles outside the
> bottle
> | > so there is no charge in the bottle but the field in the bottle as a
> result
> | > of the presence of the charged particle ok?
> |
> | So... you want to add substance to this "field". While you are doing
> | that perhaps you can conjure up some substance for "time" also. ;-)
>
> Yup but you will have to wait till Xmas :-)
>
> | >
> | > | If you say no, then you must conclude that the coupling structures
> | > | are completely dominating the space inside the bottle.
> | >
> | > Yes
> | >
> | > | Modifiying the coupling structures, modifies the space inside the
> | > | bottle.
> | >
> | > Yes
> | >
> | > | Putting charges inside the bottle modifies the space inside the
> | > | bottle.
> | >
> | > Yes but thats slightly more difficult from the outside without
> penertrating
> | > the envolope.
> |
> | We train a cat to smash a small bottle of charges on our visual signal.
> | ...have to get a nonalergenic cat tho' or it will spoil the vacuum.
>
> Daft I call it :-)
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > | Charges are magnetically detectable.
> | >
> | > Yes
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > Once you have done your electrodynamics properties change and as
> long as
> | > you
> | > | > maintain that change you will be able to detect the change?
> | > |
> | > | NMR, ESR, Stern-Gerlach, CRT yokes
> | > |
> | >
> | > Yes where do we disagree ????????? your chain was inconclusive
> |
> | I think we disagree on what occurs in the space between electrically
> | charged plates. That *IS* one of leading causes of divorce.
> |
>
> Well when you gota divorce you gota divorce my misses will be pleased she
> says I'm neglecting her.:-)
> But I'm still not sure were we disagree between the sheets opps I mean
> plates and you smashed the bottle so we may never find out. Sorry I tried to
> tie you down that is the most cause for of divorce.:-)
> You state what you think happens and I will comment ok The beds nice and
> warm:-)

I was just reading some of your remarks in the
"Non Ame" thread. It occurs to me we might make
some simlpe statements about our view of charges
in real space and resolve some of our differences
about what *vacuum* means.

In Sue-space matter or energy must come from a source
region so that charges (e+ & e- ) can exist in a destination
region. The lines of force are fundamental to the pair structure.

As I understand your Dr-space, e+ & e- is a disturbance
or modulation of some more fundamental entity that both
comprises the particles and conducts their forces.

In the wispy world of fundamental particles there may not
be much difference in those two statements. But one statement
has homogenous permeability and distributed mass/energy that
would make to any wildcatter drool.

The other (Sue-space) has inhomogenous
permeability and mass/energy tucked in niches so it
not much cheaper than the going OPEC rates.

[snip]
Sue...

Quantcast