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


guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Sue... 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.
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?:

Let them object. Many have an implausible particle concept
of light they won't let go of. Many have been brainwashed to believe
they are obligated to defend the youthful twin like 'Knghts-Templar' or
the universe will grind to a halt when someone questions the 'faith'.




#1. The denser the medium the slower the light, in water I believe
light travels at 2/3 c.
If space was truly empty, the speed of light would be infinite, instead
light travels according to the permittivity(porosity & density) of
space. (search: permittivity porosity)

This is true. But you are using examples with composite
particles and drawing the wrong parallels about electromagneistm.
If a space could be filled with electrons and positrons

When a cosmic ray or photon interacts with a nucleus, gas, or
atmosphere not only electron/positrons pairs are produced but the chain
reaction (chain billiard reaction) that I wrote might also happen?

Why wouldn't the immense intensity of which the photon transmits to a
nucleus (or gas) cause a chain reaction more similar to a billiard
chain reaction ( I read somewhere long long ago in a land far far away,
I think that a photon absorbed by I think an electron is not
nescessarily the same photon emitted by the electron (or something like
that) which may be a billiard type chain reaction)?

Whether fundamental particles establish eps and mu. or
eps and mu establish the conditions for fundamental particles
to exist...
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
....is like the chicken and egg question.

You need to pick one POV and stick with it.
Considering you are terrified of darkness and emptnies,
and you are showing some good progress with Maxwell's
equations. I would reccommend you leave the 'photons'
to the filosophers, forget the emptiness and concentrate
on how fundamental particles with infinite extent behave.

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

Pics where words fail:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clocksnrods
clocksnrods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sue...



the *almost-particles* would behave according to few if any of
the mechanical principles you cited but would be fully functional
electromagnetically. The ~most sucessful physical theory~ QED,
does not fill its space with atoms... but rather virtual-particles,
electrons and positrons that can, in your mind at least give a
homonogeous dielectric pseudo_gas, not that different
electromagnetically from the hydrogen gas that fills our universe.

By the way, eps and mu are not constant. They vary near
material coupling structures:

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


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).

Again... simply consider an electron or a positron to be infinitly
large with a ~density~ that diminishes by the inverse square law
and you'll have no 'empty space' to keep you up late and fretting. :o)
It will be banished from the univese never more to terrorize
little children in their sleep.


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

There is no possibilty that #1 is true because it is an absurd
comparison. You don't expect ripples on the surface when light
propagates through a glass of water. You do expect ripples when
sound waves propagate through water.

Sue...












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

Sue...

.

Quantcast