Re: Reaching Light Speed,
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/07/04
- Next message: Joe: "Re: 2nd Law violation and Time"
- Previous message: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:02:51 GMT
On 7 Oct 2004 07:20:50 -0700, pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper) wrote:
>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<fmn8m0pr4u04043vh7pri08ko33buc0osr@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Oct 2004 07:50:05 -0700, pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper) wrote:
>>
>> >First of all, the reason why electric and magnetic fields propagate
>> >themselves through space is not a resonance phenomenon. It actually
>> >has to do more with the fact that the strength of one field is coupled
>> >to the change in the strength of the other. The wave nature of the
>> >solution is just what pops out of the math of the relationship -- but
>> >it certainly isn't the only solution, and therefore it's improper to
>> >say that the solution is the physics.
>>
>> Listen fool, I specifically wrote 'resonance' (not the parenthesis) on the
>> assumption that any informed reader would know what you just wrote and save ME
>> the trouble of jotting it down.
>>
>>
>> >What IS true is that the laws
>> >that govern how the strength of one is coupled to the change in the
>> >strength of the other are Lorentz-invariant, which perhaps if we look
>> >at it is suggestive of other conclusions.
>>
>> That's bull.
>> 'Lorentz invariance' only exists if there is an aether.
>
>And THAT is bull. Maxwell may have conceived of an ether, but nothing
>in his equations depend on it, and others after him pointed out that
>the ether could be entirely disposed of conceptually.
Maxwell (actually Heaveside did all the groundwork) simply found a value for
light speed - in a vacuum or a medium.
He didn't provide any reference for that speed.
As you should know, speed must always be defined WRT something else.
So what do you think Maxwell had in mind for that reference?
>
>>
>> >
>> >Secondly, your belief that mass is nothing but a combination of fields
>> >should be substantiated somehow. That is, let's determine what mass is
>> >by the property that it describes. What makes an object massive? How
>> >is it we say that one object has more mass than another? What
>> >observable behavior do we note that makes that determination? That's
>> >part one of the question. Part two of the question is: what about "a
>> >combination of fields" would account for that behavior that we
>> >associate with mass?
>>
>> Nice to see you are starting to think.
>>
>> Part 1. I just provided a definition. Matter is an intrinsic property of the
>> space it occupies.
>
>Sorry, that's not definitive enough. I would argue that charge,
>volume, heat, baryonic number, and even harmonic oscillator ground
>state energy are all satisfy the same definition.
AND THEY DO
> Sort of like
>defining "matter" by saying it's a noun. What I need is a
>*distinguishing* definition that separates it from other terms.
No, it does a lot more than that.
Traditionally, we regard matter as something 'solid'.
That idea must be changed.
There is no 'solid material' in the universe.
So what makes some volumes of 'space' different from others?
Why can we not easily penetrate ALL of space?
>
>>
>> That doesn't say anything about mass but it changes the angle of attack.
>>
>> I'm sure you will agree that the concept of 'solid matter' is quite impossible.
>> To possess distinguishable properties, a particle would require a structure.
>> That would require smaller particles....and so on.
>>
>> Part 2. I don't know... but it could account for the velocity dependence if
>> any.
>
>That's kind of squishy. So far, you've not defined what "mass" means
>that would distinguish it from other properties, but you've proposed
>that it (whatever it is) is a 'resonance' of fields, but you don't
>know how that explains any of the distinguishing features of it
>(whatever it is).
Don't lie like Andersen.
I said LIGHT moves because of some kind of 'resonance' (note the commas).
I didn't claim anything about matter except that it was a manifestation of a
property of fields.
>
>Have I got it right so far?
No. you have now.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Recapping:
>> >1. Drop your notion that e.m. radiation arises because of resonance.
>> >That's a misconception, plain and simple.
>>
>> Resonance is not 'resonance'.
>>
>> >2. Get concrete about your suggestive notions.
>>
>> It takes time.
>>
>
>I guess my point is, you need to take the time to get it more concrete
>before airing it in public.
Naturally.
>
>PD
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: Joe: "Re: 2nd Law violation and Time"
- Previous message: G=EMC^2 Glazier: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Paul Draper: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Next in thread: Paul Draper: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Reply: Paul Draper: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
