Spoonfed wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Daniel Weston wrote:
"Why is the speed of light the same for all observers?" Ans: No body
knows.

Students of electromagnetism know...or think they know:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif from:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

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

But the study of electromagnetism is
uh...harrrrd.... ya hafta be workin' harrrd ;-)

Seems like the right direction... But all that hard stuff is pretty
confusing. Do you suppose we could find some explanation that may not
be so hard? Maybe not a timeline but at least a list of goals, and
maybe a roadmap to understanding?

Goals?
1. Learn below 30 GHz
2. Learn above 30 GHz

Two steps because, when the antenna is built out of
oscillators things get tricker... but the same rules
apply.


Okay, start with a stationary charged particle. It has a central
electric field. If that particle is moving, if I am not mistaken, it
creates a magnetic field. However, somebody moving along with the
particle doesn't see the magnetic field.

Start with two particles. + and -
Move one in the real world filled with + and -.
It is harder but the integral form is 'timeless'
(pun intended)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

Now, I don't quite see how this particular idea leads to a constant
speed of light, but it is a bit strange, anyway. I'm just bringing it
up because that's a question I've never fully explored.

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

The mass of a charge pair (0.511 MeV) is like the
mass of a guitar string. The Coulomb force is
like the tension on the guitar string.
AFAIK... no relation to m therory. LOL


I do remember sometime in college when I THOUGHT I understood how
electric and magnetic fields explained the speed of light. Multiplying
the permittivity times the permeability of free space yielded the speed
of light. However, I can't remember what would make a person multiply
these two values together, except that they happen to produce the speed
of light.

Substitute "homogenous universe" (377 ohms) for free space and it is
easier to see. Permeability we associate with spinning. So we have
to be near some thing spinning. See:

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



So, I guess the question I want to ask is, why do you multiply
permittivity and permeability together?
As you are closer to matter the spinning magnetic domains
predominate as an energy storage element. When you are
farther from matter, the inertia of the charge pair predominates.

Because both eps and mu both represent storage, and thus
delay, they can be normalized and combined for the SOL
formula.

Also you have to careful about cgs, MKS and SI differences
as you calculate with dielectrics.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ptibility.html

Sue...

NEW SI GUESS iSS GENERAL UNiVERSAL EQUATiON of STATE SYSTEM
Where, (permeability*permittivity) = Uo*Eo
= m1 / h*fL
= nL / fL*wl*c
= m1 / k*{e}*fL*c
= Na*m1 / Ra*{e}*fL*c
= Na*(mol part) / Mol*(vp*vg)
= Na*(mol part) / Mol*c^2.
Where wl is wavelength.
Where k is Boltzman's constant.
Where C2 is SECOND RADiATiON constant.
Where Na is Avagadro's NUMBER constant.
Where (vp*vg) is GROUP velocity times PHASE velocity.
Where Eo is NOT EinsteiN's ABSORBED photon ENERGY, for here.
brian a m stuckless

Spoonfed wrote:
electric and magnetic fields explained the speed of light.

Multiplying the permittivity times the permeability

So, I guess the question I want to ask is, why do you multiply
permittivity and permeability together?

NEW SI GUESS iSS GENERAL UNiVERSAL EQUATiON of STATE SYSTEM
Where, (permeability*permittivity) = Uo*Eo - (sec)^2 / m^2
= 2*pi*k*c*{e} / C1
= 2*pi*Ub / C1*Zs
= 2*pi*h / C1
= {e} / C2
= m1 / h*fL
= nL / fL*wl*c
= m1 / k*{e}*fL*c
= Na*m1 / Ra*{e}*fL*c
= Na*(mol part) / Mol*(vp*vg)
= Na*(mol part) / Mol*c^2.
NOMENCLATU
Where wl is wavelength.
Where Ub is Bohr MAGNETON.
Where k is Boltzman's constant.
Where C1 is FiRST RADiATiON constant.
Where C2 is SECOND RADiATiON constant.
Where Na is Avagadro's NUMBER constant.
Where Zs is the ZeeMann SPLiTTiNG constant.
Where (vp*vg) is PHASE velocity times GROUP velocity.
NOTE: Eo is NOT EinsteiN's ABSORBED photon ENERGY, here.
brian a m stuckless

Spoonfed wrote:
electric and magnetic fields explained the speed of light.

Multiplying the permittivity times the permeability

So, I guess the question I want to ask is, why do you multiply
permittivity and permeability together?

Why is the speed of light the same for all observers? (Inertial...
MASS is LiGHT.!! Archimedes Plutonium. ..[ Note the attachments ].

"Sue..." wrote in message ups.com...

Spoonfed wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Daniel Weston wrote:
"Why is the speed of light the same for all observers?" Ans: No body
knows.

Students of electromagnetism know...or think they know:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif from:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

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

But the study of electromagnetism is
uh...harrrrd.... ya hafta be workin' harrrd ;-)

Seems like the right direction... But all that hard stuff is pretty
confusing. Do you suppose we could find some explanation that may not
be so hard? Maybe not a timeline but at least a list of goals, and
maybe a roadmap to understanding?

Goals?
1. Learn below 30 GHz
2. Learn above 30 GHz

Two steps because, when the antenna is built out of
oscillators things get tricker... but the same rules
apply.


Okay, start with a stationary charged particle. It has a central
electric field. If that particle is moving, if I am not mistaken, it
creates a magnetic field. However, somebody moving along with the
particle doesn't see the magnetic field.

Start with two particles. + and -
Move one in the real world filled with + and -.
It is harder but the integral form is 'timeless'
(pun intended)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral

Now, I don't quite see how this particular idea leads to a constant
speed of light, but it is a bit strange, anyway. I'm just bringing it
up because that's a question I've never fully explored.

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

The mass of a charge pair (0.511 MeV) is like the
mass of a guitar string. The Coulomb force is
like the tension on the guitar string.
AFAIK... no relation to m therory. LOL


I do remember sometime in college when I THOUGHT I understood how
electric and magnetic fields explained the speed of light. Multiplying
the permittivity times the permeability of free space yielded the speed
of light. However, I can't remember what would make a person multiply
these two values together, except that they happen to produce the speed
of light.

Substitute "homogenous universe" (377 ohms) for free space and it is
easier to see. Permeability we associate with spinning. So we have
to be near some thing spinning. See:

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



So, I guess the question I want to ask is, why do you multiply
permittivity and permeability together?
As you are closer to matter the spinning magnetic domains
predominate as an energy storage element. When you are
farther from matter, the inertia of the charge pair predominates.

Because both eps and mu both represent storage, and thus
delay, they can be normalized and combined for the SOL
formula.

Also you have to careful about cgs, MKS and SI differences
as you calculate with dielectrics.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ptibility.html

Sue...

Dennis at his best ;-)

Dirk Vdm

wrote:
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket wrote:
Phase velocity and group velocity??

xxein: Try (c+v)^2 along with the mandatory (c-v)^2.

Both are present at all times in all (inertial) frames.

If you need further explanation, you are just a poser.

Pssssssssst! You wan I should sell you some dirty postcards?

Daniel Weston wrote:
"Why is the speed of light the same for all observers?" Ans: No body
knows. That is the correct answer and it should be given quickly. Some
un professional defenders of relativity on this ng, become incredibly
defensive when asked this question or like questions where the answer is
unknown.
[...]

Ours not to reason why, but do n die. Tis blasphemy, tis veritable
blasphemy. God has prepared Hell for people who ask such questions.
(St. Orgastine)

Yak-a-yak-a-yak-a-yak, und so veyeter.

Drive a stake through the heart of science and put it to rest for the
next thousand years.

Daniel Weston wrote:
"Why is the speed of light the same for all observers?" Ans: No body
knows. That is the correct answer and it should be given quickly. Some
un professional defenders of relativity on this ng, become incredibly
defensive when asked this question or like questions where the answer is
unknown.
[...]

Ours not to reason why, but do n die. Tis blasphemy, tis veritable
blasphemy. God has prepared Hell for people who ask such questions.
(St. Orgastine)

Yak-a-yak-a-yak-a-yak, und so veyeter.

Drive a stake through the heart of science and put it to rest for the
next thousand years.

Sue Dorothy Dorothy Dorothy wrote:
Daniel Weston wrote:
"Why is the speed of light the same for all observers?" Ans: No body
knows.

Students of electromagnetism know...or think they know:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif from:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

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

But the study of electromagnetism is
uh...harrrrd.... ya hafta be workin' harrrd ;-)
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm

==== No Physics below this line ====

Thank God!!! Sue, you's a blessing in de skies ....

Morning Sedition: Tuesday -- Either Way, Bush Loses
Followed the Streisand compound marching orders from
Friday: Bush "uh's" to a ... Links
are, uh...harrrrd....workin' harrrd...orderin' in...Sattidays...Sundies
...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
©2005 Google

That is the correct answer and it should be given quickly. Some
un professional defenders of relativity on this ng, become incredibly
defensive when asked this question or like questions where the answer is
unknown.
By their immature and canned responses,
you would think that somebody's ancestry had been called into question.

It is not a crime to ask why,

You talkin 'bout aluminum tubes or faked letters.
If that's not a crime to ask about then
we need to make it one.
... And lets put something in it about the
commandments, the pledge, vouchers, flag burning,
vouchers gays and tax cuts.

meaning by what mechanism. It is not a
crime to answer such questions with an honest and simple, 'we don't
know'.

Mom, apple-pie, and Reagan's national debt is
not a crime is it?

But yes... Most of us don't know how much we
don't know.
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

;-)
Sue...

Our enemies never tire of thinking up ways to harm us ..............
And neither do we.

Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket wrote:
wrote:
Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket wrote:
Phase velocity and group velocity??

xxein: Try (c+v)^2 along with the mandatory (c-v)^2.

Both are present at all times in all (inertial) frames.

If you need further explanation, you are just a poser.

Pssssssssst! You wan I should sell you some dirty postcards?

xxein: I want to see them first, before I buy.

Daniel Weston, incompetent asshole:
"Why is the speed of light the same for all observers?" Ans: No body
knows.

Wrong. What nobody knows is how to get the answer through your
thick skull. That is an entirely different question.

That is the correct answer and it should be given quickly. Some
un professional defenders of relativity on this ng, become incredibly
defensive when asked this question or like questions where the answer is
unknown.

By their immature and canned responses,
you would think that somebody's ancestry had been called into question.

It is not a crime to ask why, meaning by what mechanism.

No, but it is a crime to reject the answer because it doesn't fit
your naive world view.

It is not a crime to answer such questions with an honest and simple,
'we don't know'.

No, but it is a crime to blame your inability to understand the
answer on all of those who gave you the answer you requested.