Re: Through a glass darkly

From: Dr *** (paulpsremove_at_freeuk.com)
Date: 03/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:57:23 -0000

"jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ajjj4F6cmfseU1@individual.net...
|
| "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.

Yes but this is another issue as we are refering to the spectral shift
introduced by velocity differences *other* than the change of medium.

|
| >
| >
| > | > |
| >
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.

This is nothing to do with the shift changes due to the earths rotation
which are zero because the velocity difference are zero with respect to our
sun. come on dont get caught be the same confusion as PD.

| > | > | 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.

Yes and this generates the shift due to relative motion in the vacuum ok ?
|
| A torpedo swims out of it's tube with the addition
| of the ships motion.

Yes so v+v=v1= torpedo velocity

It soon forgets the ships motion
| and adds it's velocity to the sea currents.
|
Ug! what the torpedo ands its velocity to the sea current?

Sea current = vsc so vsc+v1 = new sea current :-) ?

| The submarine's speed is added directly to the
| torpedo's speed for a 2 meter range.
|
Ah! so this is what you mean v+v=v1 torpedo speed on exit relative to sub

Torpedo speed >2m = v1+sc = new torpedo speed relative to 0 ?

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

I have no problem with driving a train or skippering a sub:-)
|
| Zealotry about the constant speed of
| light can conceal the mechanism that reconciles the
| two postulates of SR.

There is no need to be a zealot as v1=v1 there is no conflict. you need to
skipper more subs :-)
|
| > |
| > | 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.
|
How can f shift in GPS clearly relate to source spectral shift and I can
sigh as well but for much longer and in capital :-)
SIGH......................................................................

|
| >
| > | You are stating that the shift in an emitter's line spectra occurs
| > | early in the path... and I agree.
| > |

And do you agree that the source and observer velocities can be calculated
against a common vacuum base velocity? yes or no and bright lights in eyes
and heavy beating if you prevaricate :-)? I will put ALL you reading this to
the torture so you better be ready with your answer :-)

| > 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.

That was ambiguous in the context of this debate but
Good well they got that right perhaps but we have drifted so far off the
point that we wll have to build a ftl ship to get us back and when we do
they may all be dead so does it matter :-)?.

|
| >
| >
| > | 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.
|

Ug! there was as you gave it as the reason for PD's confusion and you
brought the red and blue skyes in we are talking about. We/I were talking
about spectral shift due to relative motion of sourse/vacuum/observer not
this heavy shoal of red herrings so you cant even see the water:-)

| >
| > | joining the Ghurkas ?
| > |
| >
| > I got dicharged I was to nasty they said :-)
| A likely story. LOL
Oh you have not seen me with my trousers off:-)

| >
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | 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.

I see a shoal of red herrings comming our way phut! phut! phut! I cant eat
anymore at the moment and if you force me I will be sick and sick untill I
scream so there.:-)
| >
| > 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!

Sick sick scream :-)

| > | Use any means you desire to exclude charges and related lines of
| > | force from the region of space under test.
| > |
Sick sick scream :-)
| > 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?
|

Yep give me enough Gr's or Ga's and I can look up me own bum :-)

| >
| > | > 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.

Sick sick scream :-)

|
| Ohhh forget the bottle and post "no trespassing" signs in
| electroneese.
Glass+time= liquid
|
| [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.
| > | >

The space inside is coupling structures ie vacuum

| > | > 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.

Sick sick scream :-)
| >
| > 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.

See my new post to Ken
|
| 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.

Domestic break I will return
|
| 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...
|
|