The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for use in
cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position is that
the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
supporting is in fact incorrect and as the fields must have mass as they
have energy the result from such a view would be that EMR would act
ballisticly, which it clearly does not.

*See Appendix at the end of this post if you have any difficulty in
understanding the context and meaning of words used in this text.*

Preferred common dictionary definition used in this text.
Vacuum:- Absence of normal or previous content.
(note:- see appendix for further expansion.)

Some simple simplified provable facts.

a) The speed of light (SOL) is constant in vacuum and is used as a constant.
b) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source.
c) The fact of spectral shift as a product of Doppler shift is proof of
velocity differences in the vacuum in the observation process so as to
preserve the constancy of c and energy. To do this a state change is
required
at the source and observer boundary with the vacuum.
d) The observer can from observation of the deviation frequency (spectral
shift) of light with a known frequency, determine their velocity with
respect to the vacuum and other sources with respect to the vacuum by a
spectrophotometer and computation, in most cases. (note:- see cosmology)
e) Many of the examples posted to this group and in establishment books fail
to take account of the above facts and can be misleading both in concept and
formulation.

Appendix:-
The point here is that a vacuum is a relative commodity.
Vacuum refers to vacuum-nspace an entity that invades everything and exists
even as particles in a modulated form.
Its basic mathematical quality is sub Planck, tetrohydronik and on which all
energy events are modulated. Its simplified definition is correct all though
this text and can be expand beyond any current definition.


Notes:-
See for street view of thread postings.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ics.relativity
For references see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../isq.html#isqe
and
http://departments.weber.edu/physics...r/MRRtalk.html
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/weber.html
If there are any refs. you think I have forgotten and should
be included in above please email as below as the above
list is dynamic.

The hall of fame/infamy below is not meant to imply
that those mentioned agree or disagree with any of
the facts or views expressed in this post.
No precedence is meant to be implied by the order
of the listings.
If you wish for any edits to this list please email.
removing remove.

Credits to :-
Sue Jahn, Fredifizzx

Neutral to be allocated

Debits to:-
Bilge, Dirk, dlzc, PD & sycophantic Co, Bill Hobba, Tom Roberts


Thanks Paulps.

"PSVacuum" wrote in message
...

The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for use in
cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position

Why not get out of your chair and study some physics instead of posting more
drivel?

is that
the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
supporting is in fact incorrect

Classically no experiment has ever falsified Maxwell's equations.

and as the fields must have mass as they
have energy

Since energy does not necessarily have mass the above is clearly false.

the result from such a view would be that EMR would act
ballisticly, which it clearly does not.

In the words of another regular poster - plonk.

Bill

"PSVacuum" wrote in message ...

The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
[snip]
Debits to:-
Bilge, Dirk, dlzc, PD & sycophantic Co, Bill Hobba, Tom Roberts

Credits to PD:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../JustFine.html

Dirk Vdm

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "PSVacuum" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
| interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for use in
| cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position
|
| Why not get out of your chair and study some physics instead of posting
more
| drivel?
|
| is that
| the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
| supporting is in fact incorrect
|
| Classically no experiment has ever falsified Maxwell's equations.
|
| and as the fields must have mass as they
| have energy
|
| Since energy does not necessarily have mass the above is clearly false.

e=mc^2 disprove it Troll plonker

|
| the result from such a view would be that EMR would act
| ballisticly, which it clearly does not.
|
| In the words of another regular poster - plonk.
|
| Bill

"PSVacuum" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "PSVacuum" wrote in message
| ...
|
| The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
| interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for use
in
| cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position
|
| Why not get out of your chair and study some physics instead of posting
more
| drivel?
|
| is that
| the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
| supporting is in fact incorrect
|
| Classically no experiment has ever falsified Maxwell's equations.
|
| and as the fields must have mass as they
| have energy
|
| Since energy does not necessarily have mass the above is clearly false.

e=mc^2 disprove it Troll plonker

Learn to reason. E=MC^2 says mass is equivalent to energy - not the other
way round. Although it is a wasted on you to see why that is the first
thing you need to do is figure out what the free particle lagrangian is.
Now the action integral has the form integral something where that something
should be invariant. The only invariant to construct it out of is
proportional to the differential of proper time tau ie integral alpha*dtau
where alpha is some constant. To find the constant we take the non
relativistic limit of alpha*dtau alpha*dtau = alpha*sqrt (1 -v^2) dt so the
lagrangian is alpha*sqrt (1 -v^2) which for small v is alpha - alpha v^2/2
which is equivalent to - alpha*v^2/2 - constants can be removed from the
lagrangian without affecting the resulting equations. Comparing that to
the classical free particle lagrangian m*v^2/2 we see alpha is -m. Thus the
relativistic free particle lagrangian is L = -m sqrt (1 -v^2). Now energy E
is defined as the conserved Noether current related to time translation
which is E = (part deriv L/part deriv v) . v - L which works out as E = M /
sqrt (1 - v^2). Now suppose a particle is at rest we end up with E = M.
Thus we see that a rest particle of mass M is equivalent to energy E = M (or
in units where C not = 1 M*C^2). Note however it is not saying that energy
of any sort is equivalent to mass - it is saying a particle of non zero rest
mass M has energy E. This is the reason particle physicists like to express
everything in the form of energy. Also note that M is the invariant rest
mass of a particle - these days most do not like to introduce the derived
quantity called the relativity mass - M/sqrt (1 - v^2). The above is an
argument based on physical principles - something you should learn about
instead of posting your drivel. Your proof of the converse - that energy is
equivalent to mass is eagerly awaited.

Bill


|
| the result from such a view would be that EMR would act
| ballisticly, which it clearly does not.
|
| In the words of another regular poster - plonk.
|
| Bill

PSVacuum wrote:
The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for use
in
cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position is
that
the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
supporting is in fact incorrect and as the fields must have mass as
they
have energy

That is incorrect. Energy does not necessarily imply mass.

the result from such a view would be that EMR would act
ballisticly, which it clearly does not.

*See Appendix at the end of this post if you have any difficulty in
understanding the context and meaning of words used in this text.*

Preferred common dictionary definition used in this text.
Vacuum:- Absence of normal or previous content.

This is inconsistent with the "relative" definition below. "Absence" in
this definition is not meant to be equated with "lesser amount".

(note:- see appendix for further expansion.)

Some simple simplified provable facts.

a) The speed of light (SOL) is constant in vacuum and is used as a
constant.
b) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source.
c) The fact of spectral shift as a product of Doppler shift is proof
of
velocity differences in the vacuum

Still either poorly stated or wrong. Velocity differences of *what* in
the vacuum?

in the observation process so as to
preserve the constancy of c and energy. To do this a state change is
required
at the source and observer boundary with the vacuum.
d) The observer can from observation of the deviation frequency
(spectral
shift) of light with a known frequency, determine their velocity with
respect to the vacuum

This is still incorrect. The Doppler effect for sound allows you to
determine the velocity of the source with respect to the medium, but
the Doppler effect for light does not allow you to do the same thing.
The two effects arise from different physical origins. There is no
logical connection.

and other sources with respect to the vacuum by a
spectrophotometer and computation, in most cases. (note:- see
cosmology)
e) Many of the examples posted to this group and in establishment
books fail
to take account of the above facts and can be misleading both in
concept and
formulation.

That's because the facts above are incorrect.


Appendix:-
The point here is that a vacuum is a relative commodity.
Vacuum refers to vacuum-nspace an entity that invades everything and
exists
even as particles in a modulated form.

Since this definition of "vacuum" is at odds with the usual definition
by physicists and indeed with the common-language definition cited
above, you will need to define "vacuum" quite a bit more thoroughly and
carefully.

Its basic mathematical quality is sub Planck, tetrohydronik and on
which all
energy events are modulated. Its simplified definition is correct all
though
this text and can be expand beyond any current definition.

None of these terms ("sub Planck", "tetrohydronik" and "modulated")
have been defined, and so this statement is useless for evaluation.



Notes:-
See for street view of thread postings.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ics.relativity
For references see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../isq.html#isqe
and
http://departments.weber.edu/physics...r/MRRtalk.html
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/weber.html
If there are any refs. you think I have forgotten and should
be included in above please email as below as the above
list is dynamic.

The hall of fame/infamy below is not meant to imply
that those mentioned agree or disagree with any of
the facts or views expressed in this post.
No precedence is meant to be implied by the order
of the listings.
If you wish for any edits to this list please email.
removing remove.

Credits to :-
Sue Jahn, Fredifizzx

I notice a couple of things:
1) You've removed from your list of facts some of the things that were
included in the previous version at the suggestion of the above-named
(e.g. Fredifizzx). Thus you are crediting them for something you no
longer believe is relevant.
2) Your list of credits is getting smaller and smaller. I expect that
in the next go-round, you will have no one to give credit to but
yourself, and debits to all others. This should tell you something.
3) You no longer explicitly invite comments on your posts. I don't know
whether that's because you don't want the comments but can't help
posting anyway, or because you've resigned yourself to the comments and
are nevertheless interested in our feedback.

PD
Whoops, I mean CockroachStomper


Neutral to be allocated

Debits to:-
Bilge, Dirk, dlzc, PD & sycophantic Co, Bill Hobba, Tom Roberts


Thanks Paulps.

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| PSVacuum wrote:
| The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the current
| interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for use
| in
| cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position is
| that
| the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
| supporting is in fact incorrect and as the fields must have mass as
| they
| have energy
|
| That is incorrect. Energy does not necessarily imply mass.
|

M= E/C^2 You are demented same as Bill Hobba go away.
Rest of drivel not botherd to reply to. I wont be answering any more of your
posts PD as you are clearly a Troll with paid backup as you claimed.

| the result from such a view would be that EMR would act
| ballisticly, which it clearly does not.
|
| *See Appendix at the end of this post if you have any difficulty in
| understanding the context and meaning of words used in this text.*
|
| Preferred common dictionary definition used in this text.
| Vacuum:- Absence of normal or previous content.
|
| This is inconsistent with the "relative" definition below. "Absence" in
| this definition is not meant to be equated with "lesser amount".
|
| (note:- see appendix for further expansion.)
|
| Some simple simplified provable facts.
|
| a) The speed of light (SOL) is constant in vacuum and is used as a
| constant.
| b) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source.
| c) The fact of spectral shift as a product of Doppler shift is proof
| of
| velocity differences in the vacuum
|
| Still either poorly stated or wrong. Velocity differences of *what* in
| the vacuum?
|
| in the observation process so as to
| preserve the constancy of c and energy. To do this a state change is
| required
| at the source and observer boundary with the vacuum.
| d) The observer can from observation of the deviation frequency
| (spectral
| shift) of light with a known frequency, determine their velocity with
| respect to the vacuum
|
| This is still incorrect. The Doppler effect for sound allows you to
| determine the velocity of the source with respect to the medium, but
| the Doppler effect for light does not allow you to do the same thing.
| The two effects arise from different physical origins. There is no
| logical connection.
|
| and other sources with respect to the vacuum by a
| spectrophotometer and computation, in most cases. (note:- see
| cosmology)
| e) Many of the examples posted to this group and in establishment
| books fail
| to take account of the above facts and can be misleading both in
| concept and
| formulation.
|
| That's because the facts above are incorrect.
|
|
| Appendix:-
| The point here is that a vacuum is a relative commodity.
| Vacuum refers to vacuum-nspace an entity that invades everything and
| exists
| even as particles in a modulated form.
|
| Since this definition of "vacuum" is at odds with the usual definition
| by physicists and indeed with the common-language definition cited
| above, you will need to define "vacuum" quite a bit more thoroughly and
| carefully.
|
| Its basic mathematical quality is sub Planck, tetrohydronik and on
| which all
| energy events are modulated. Its simplified definition is correct all
| though
| this text and can be expand beyond any current definition.
|
| None of these terms ("sub Planck", "tetrohydronik" and "modulated")
| have been defined, and so this statement is useless for evaluation.
|
|
|
| Notes:-
| See for street view of thread postings.
| http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ics.relativity
| For references see
| http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../isq.html#isqe
| and
| http://departments.weber.edu/physics...r/MRRtalk.html
| http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/weber.html
| If there are any refs. you think I have forgotten and should
| be included in above please email as below as the above
| list is dynamic.
|
| The hall of fame/infamy below is not meant to imply
| that those mentioned agree or disagree with any of
| the facts or views expressed in this post.
| No precedence is meant to be implied by the order
| of the listings.
| If you wish for any edits to this list please email.
| removing remove.
|
| Credits to :-
| Sue Jahn, Fredifizzx
|
| I notice a couple of things:
| 1) You've removed from your list of facts some of the things that were
| included in the previous version at the suggestion of the above-named
| (e.g. Fredifizzx). Thus you are crediting them for something you no
| longer believe is relevant.
| 2) Your list of credits is getting smaller and smaller. I expect that
| in the next go-round, you will have no one to give credit to but
| yourself, and debits to all others. This should tell you something.
| 3) You no longer explicitly invite comments on your posts. I don't know
| whether that's because you don't want the comments but can't help
| posting anyway, or because you've resigned yourself to the comments and
| are nevertheless interested in our feedback.
|
| PD
| Whoops, I mean CockroachStomper
|
|
| Neutral to be allocated
|
| Debits to:-
| Bilge, Dirk, dlzc, PD & sycophantic Co, Bill Hobba, Tom Roberts
|
|
| Thanks Paulps.
|

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "PSVacuum" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Bill Hobba" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "PSVacuum" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| | The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the
current
| | interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for
use
| in
| | cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs position
| |
| | Why not get out of your chair and study some physics instead of
posting
| more
| | drivel?
| |
| | is that
| | the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are self
| | supporting is in fact incorrect
| |
| | Classically no experiment has ever falsified Maxwell's equations.
| |
| | and as the fields must have mass as they
| | have energy
| |
| | Since energy does not necessarily have mass the above is clearly
false.
|
| e=mc^2 disprove it Troll plonker
| Learn to reason. E=MC^2 says mass is equivalent to energy - not the other
| way round.

M= E/C^2 You are demented go away.

Had trouble with math at school did you what a load of waffle you can
produce.
All you are is ASCII spewer, Alcy I would guess.

| Although it is a wasted on you to see why that is the first
| thing you need to do is figure out what the free particle lagrangian is.
| Now the action integral has the form integral something where that
something
| should be invariant. The only invariant to construct it out of is
| proportional to the differential of proper time tau ie integral alpha*dtau
| where alpha is some constant. To find the constant we take the non
| relativistic limit of alpha*dtau alpha*dtau = alpha*sqrt (1 -v^2) dt so
the
| lagrangian is alpha*sqrt (1 -v^2) which for small v is alpha - alpha v^2/2
| which is equivalent to - alpha*v^2/2 - constants can be removed from the
| lagrangian without affecting the resulting equations. Comparing that to
| the classical free particle lagrangian m*v^2/2 we see alpha is -m. Thus
the
| relativistic free particle lagrangian is L = -m sqrt (1 -v^2). Now energy
E
| is defined as the conserved Noether current related to time translation
| which is E = (part deriv L/part deriv v) . v - L which works out as E = M
/
| sqrt (1 - v^2). Now suppose a particle is at rest we end up with E = M.
| Thus we see that a rest particle of mass M is equivalent to energy E = M
(or
| in units where C not = 1 M*C^2). Note however it is not saying that
energy
| of any sort is equivalent to mass - it is saying a particle of non zero
rest
| mass M has energy E. This is the reason particle physicists like to
express
| everything in the form of energy. Also note that M is the invariant rest
| mass of a particle - these days most do not like to introduce the derived
| quantity called the relativity mass - M/sqrt (1 - v^2). The above is an
| argument based on physical principles - something you should learn about
| instead of posting your drivel. Your proof of the converse - that energy
is
| equivalent to mass is eagerly awaited.
|
| Bill

Nice peice of waffel Bill but failes to address the point.
Go post to other thread that needs waffels.
PSVacuum

Thread abandoned Trolls please keep posting to this thread others please
goto new improved fact v01312

PSVacuum

PSVacuum wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| PSVacuum wrote:
| The theme of this thread is to determine if the fact that the
current
| interpretation of Maxwell equations does not require a medium for
use
| in
| cosmic physics is grounded in fact or faction. The chairs
position is
| that
| the idea that E fields and M fields are bound together and are
self
| supporting is in fact incorrect and as the fields must have mass
as
| they
| have energy
|
| That is incorrect. Energy does not necessarily imply mass.
|

M= E/C^2 You are demented same as Bill Hobba go away.

Be careful about flaunting math if you don't know the physics behind
it, and vice versa.

Rest of drivel not botherd to reply to. I wont be answering any more
of your
posts PD as you are clearly a Troll with paid backup as you claimed.

That's fine with me, Paulps. I won't ask you any questions, then,
because you don't seem to be able to answer any. I'll just continue
pointing out incorrect statements you make, sometimes correcting them,
without expecting a response from you.


| the result from such a view would be that EMR would act
| ballisticly, which it clearly does not.
|
| *See Appendix at the end of this post if you have any difficulty
in
| understanding the context and meaning of words used in this
text.*
|
| Preferred common dictionary definition used in this text.
| Vacuum:- Absence of normal or previous content.
|
| This is inconsistent with the "relative" definition below.
"Absence" in
| this definition is not meant to be equated with "lesser amount".
|
| (note:- see appendix for further expansion.)
|
| Some simple simplified provable facts.
|
| a) The speed of light (SOL) is constant in vacuum and is used as
a
| constant.
| b) The SOL is independent of the velocity of the source.
| c) The fact of spectral shift as a product of Doppler shift is
proof
| of
| velocity differences in the vacuum
|
| Still either poorly stated or wrong. Velocity differences of *what*
in
| the vacuum?
|
| in the observation process so as to
| preserve the constancy of c and energy. To do this a state change
is
| required
| at the source and observer boundary with the vacuum.
| d) The observer can from observation of the deviation frequency
| (spectral
| shift) of light with a known frequency, determine their velocity
with
| respect to the vacuum
|
| This is still incorrect. The Doppler effect for sound allows you to
| determine the velocity of the source with respect to the medium,
but
| the Doppler effect for light does not allow you to do the same
thing.
| The two effects arise from different physical origins. There is no
| logical connection.
|
| and other sources with respect to the vacuum by a
| spectrophotometer and computation, in most cases. (note:- see
| cosmology)
| e) Many of the examples posted to this group and in establishment
| books fail
| to take account of the above facts and can be misleading both in
| concept and
| formulation.
|
| That's because the facts above are incorrect.
|
|
| Appendix:-
| The point here is that a vacuum is a relative commodity.
| Vacuum refers to vacuum-nspace an entity that invades everything
and
| exists
| even as particles in a modulated form.
|
| Since this definition of "vacuum" is at odds with the usual
definition
| by physicists and indeed with the common-language definition cited
| above, you will need to define "vacuum" quite a bit more thoroughly
and
| carefully.
|
| Its basic mathematical quality is sub Planck, tetrohydronik and
on
| which all
| energy events are modulated. Its simplified definition is correct
all
| though
| this text and can be expand beyond any current definition.
|
| None of these terms ("sub Planck", "tetrohydronik" and "modulated")
| have been defined, and so this statement is useless for evaluation.
|
|
|
| Notes:-
| See for street view of thread postings.
| http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ics.relativity
| For references see
| http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../isq.html#isqe
| and
| http://departments.weber.edu/physics...r/MRRtalk.html
| http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/weber.html
| If there are any refs. you think I have forgotten and should
| be included in above please email as below as the above
| list is dynamic.
|
| The hall of fame/infamy below is not meant to imply
| that those mentioned agree or disagree with any of
| the facts or views expressed in this post.
| No precedence is meant to be implied by the order
| of the listings.
| If you wish for any edits to this list please email.
| removing remove.
|
| Credits to :-
| Sue Jahn, Fredifizzx
|
| I notice a couple of things:
| 1) You've removed from your list of facts some of the things that
were
| included in the previous version at the suggestion of the
above-named
| (e.g. Fredifizzx). Thus you are crediting them for something you no
| longer believe is relevant.
| 2) Your list of credits is getting smaller and smaller. I expect
that
| in the next go-round, you will have no one to give credit to but
| yourself, and debits to all others. This should tell you something.
| 3) You no longer explicitly invite comments on your posts. I don't
know
| whether that's because you don't want the comments but can't help
| posting anyway, or because you've resigned yourself to the comments
and
| are nevertheless interested in our feedback.
|
| PD
| Whoops, I mean CockroachStomper
|
|
| Neutral to be allocated
|
| Debits to:-
| Bilge, Dirk, dlzc, PD & sycophantic Co, Bill Hobba, Tom Roberts
|
|
| Thanks Paulps.
|