Re: Does "c" loose some velocity after leaving a dense medium back into space?

From: John C. Polasek (jpolasek_at_cfl.rr.com)
Date: 03/24/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:37:45 -0500

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:15:13 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:

>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:n27341t2jrj1aq4q5tn40i6qpi9bu5b53p@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:41:09 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:jln141pf2475me3887rm07e26j5o6d9qr6@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:28:38 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> CHOP
>> >> >
>>
chopb
>> >
>> >Something you obviously do not understand - a broiling see of virtual
>> >particles - but it is doubtful you even understand what a virtual
>particle
>> >is. Hint it is an off mass shell contribution from the propagator - see
>> >page 19 of Zee - Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell.
>>
>> "broiling sea of virtual particles"?
>> I don't know what a virtual particle is?
>
>Sure do - it is the off mass shell terms from the propagator - see
>http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/propagator. See the formula for the
>position space propagator - notice the p^2 - m^2 + ie in the demominator?
>That means most of the contribution to that integral will come from values
>of p close to m and are called on mass shell; other values are called off
>mass shell. For values of p different from m it is linguistic jargon to
>call them virtual particles. But they are no less real than values close to
>m - they simply make less contribution to the propagator. All this is
>discussed on page 25 Zee - QFT in a Nutshell. John have you ever actually
>read a book on the theory you are so critical of? You seem to not
>understand even the most elementary basics. There is a reason the
>references I am giving are from the early pages of Zees book - they are
>fundamental.
>
>> It's in my permittivity
>> paper. The pairs confined in cells Lam = 3.5x10^-14m are virtual and
>> not yet created. Their exact density accounts for the exact value of
>> permittivity. They polarize up to 10^20V/m, after which, cosmic rays
>> for example, they emerge as temporary pairs ala Anderson 1932.
>
>First I have shown repeatedly your historical account of positrons is a
>total fabrication. Second discourse in an area is greatly enhanced if one
>uses the standard language of that area. Let us stick with the usual
>definitions and not your concocted ones. Call it whatever you like but
>stitch with current defections for words already in use.
>
>>
>> Creation consists of removing electrons only, at cost of 1/2 mc2 and
>> are accelerated to the speed of light for another 1/2 mc2.
>>
>
>A massive particle can not be accelerated to the speed of light.
>
>Rest of incomprehensible rubbish mercifully snipped.
>
>Bill

To succed in QED you naturally had to give up reality, and now you
don't even like it. Don't try to judge new physics with your trumped
up jargonistic QED.
Otherwise you wouldn't say things like

"See the formula for the
position space propagator - notice the p^2 - m^2 + ie in the
demominator?
That means most of the contribution to that integral will come from
values
of p close to m and are called on mass shell; other values are called
off
mass shell. For values of p different from m it is linguistic jargon
to
call them virtual particles".

As far as my being unfamiliar with virtual particles---yes, with YOUR
virtual particles. Evidently you do not realize that other people have
their own virtual particles, used as provisional entities that serve
until the abnormality can be properly affirmed.

MY virtual particles are real electrons and positrons, as previously
described, but prior to their creation, while still in their cells and
having to be virtual because they appear to give actual vacuum
permittivity while the vacuum is truly void.

They're virtual till we are forced to conclude that we have Dirac's
Sea of Electrons, a concept which he dropped while still half-baked,
even though he personally was apprised of Anderson's 1932 discovery
and then still did nothing about inserting positrons and going from
there. .
I investigated in detail to develop the contents of this new space.
This is where the virtual became real, in the new space. In the larger
view this new space, Espace is just the ticket to banish the odious
Big Bang theory; our universe was created from its stuff.

You are ruined for real physics. Of course, I realize when one chooses
a craft and puts in years of study and writes papers for his mentor
and subsists on government grants, it is simply not practical to throw
the whole thing up and try something you would like. How much call is
there, really, for physicists who would develop new gravity theories?

You seem unable to see that I put more science in those few papers
than you ever saw in your venue where (ha ha ha) "particles mediate
forces". And since I was writing papers on tensor analysis almost 60
years ago, you've got a hell of nerve telling me I can't tell a scalar
from a vector. It shows your powers of perception are on par with
those of a terrapin.
John Polasek

If you have something to say write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay.

Relevant Pages