Re: Said it once, I'll say it again

The_Man wrote:
Sue... wrote:
The_Man wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Sue... wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Sue... wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I dare anyone to be able to comprehend, not just throw insults and
instead properly rebuttle??
(maybe accelerating between inertial frames is recharging the clock's
battery or something else just as weird?)

If I swap the positions of 2 helium atoms, no one notices.

That depends. If they are both Helium-4, he-4 is a boson, so the world
would not notice (the wavefunction would NOT change sign). If they are
both Helium-3, He-3 is a FERMION. Therefore, if they are switched, the
wavefunction will change sign (bosons and fermions have quite different
properties. Switching a positron and an electron is a big deal, since
they are two completely different particles.


If I swap the position of a positron and electron,
the whole universe knows it ?


why?

Post after post you cobble up yet another
thought experiment that is a quest to express
fundamental particles in terms of composite
particles.

You have managed to take what can be expressed
in two sentences and build down from it so that nothing
is expressed in a page and a half. Don't let me discourage
you from further digging tho' . "Stay the course". When you
can say nothing in about ten pages, and the sun illuminates
your feet for only 15 minutes a day, then it might be time
to consider putting your shovel away. :o)

http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/maxwell.htm#history
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

I love work.
I can watch it all day long.

Sue...

Watch indeed, for if ye understood what I had written ye would not
answer only at the very end but immediately where you felt I was wrong
even if that be at the first sentence.

All the links above do not specify the following possibility, though
many would "angrily" object?:



#1. The denser the medium the slower the light, in water I believe
light travels at 2/3 c.

The fact that light moves more slowly through matter than throguh
vacuum depends on the special way that light propagates through matter.
Get a book and read it, and you'll learn how this happens. It would be
more productive to this, than to waste time speculating based on
ignorance.

Where would would you find so little matter that you
could ignore it ?

Interstellar space. The mass density of interstellar space is
extremely low - not exactly a vacuum, but pretty close. One can also
construct near vaccums on earth, and we find that the velocity of light
certainly doesn't become infinite.

The nearest charge will see to that:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

The best ISM vacuum is estimated about 1 hydrogen atom
cubic centimeter.
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
My charged comb and pithball expeiment
works swell over. that distance.

Another place is inside atomic orbitals. That is where
sourceless wave equations really shine. (no pun intended)

In nanofabrication, the near-field errors become unacceptable
and Maxwell won't work without a tweak.
"Dyadic Green's Functions for Multi-Layer SAW Substrates"
http://www.ieee-uffc.org/tr/Toc/abs/01/jan171.htm

Railroaders find little application and cosmologists
should probably do the same. ;-)

Observer dependent speed of light is resolved
by the wave impedance of the coupling structures
for long paths:

http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Sue...







If space was truly empty, the speed of light would be infinite, instead

No, if spcae were truly empty, light would move at c.

light travels according to the permittivity(porosity & density) of
space. (search: permittivity porosity)

Now the wise know not to be angry and not to agree, but tell themselves
there is a chance it's correct for it would be just as hypocritical to
say space is truly empty even though it's permittivity is not zero (or
infinite).

If there's is a slightest chance that #1 is possible then Newton's law

God, so more people hatre Newton, too, and not just Einstein.

of an object's continuous velocity (unless interupted) in SPACE would
be false, for if space is indeed similar to other mediums: in these
other denser mediums, initial velocity is never constant(continuous)
since it's slows down proportionally with the density of the medium.
And therefore the cosmic expansion may not ONLY be slowing down due to
gravity but also due to the permittivity of Space.

Actually, the lastest experiments suggest that the expansion of the
universe is INCREASING, not slowing.












That *seems* inconsistant with your POV.
'Tho I may have misread you article.

Sue...

.

Quantcast