Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:16:55 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 17 Sep, 01:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:48:22 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:

Then you don't know anything about maths. What do
you think the subscript "_0" means?

But I'm telling you, e_0 cannot be measured....

And I am ignoring you because the equations are linear
hence e_0 is the limiting value as the density tends
to zero so your "threshold" nonsense is irrelevant.

It's the limit value of the measuring apparatus...

Nope, it is the value in the region being measured and
since vacuum is the same everywhere (there is nothing
to differ) it has the same value universally.

That would be true if I had omitted the "_0". Suppose
e and/or u varies in diferent regions of space (not
unreasonable for example if the ISM density). In that
case the speed also varies from place to place, but
the maths still requires that the light from sources
with different motions passing each other at any
location still has the same speed applicable to that
location. The equations do not permit the motion of
the source to influence the speed of the light they
emit which is why SR follows directly from Maxwell's
Equations and they are incompatbible with ballistic
theory.

George, my theory says that below the WDT, there is no clear e or u and
Maxwell's equations don't hold.

So you say below th threshold they don't hold and
I have shown you that if they do hold (i.e. above
your threshold) then they are not compatible with
ballistic theory. You seem to be simply agreeing
with me, Maxwell's Equations are not usable in
ballistic theory.

Presumably you agree that above the threshold SR
applies.

No George. Above the threshold, light entering such a region 'tends towards'
the Maxwellian speed wrt that region.

If the equations apply then it adopts that speed instantly.

The rate at which its speed will adjust depends on the 'density' in that
region.....density have a much broader meaning than just 'matter density'.

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some basic maths. For
any _single_ observer, light has a _single_ speed
regardless of the speed of the source according to
Maxwell's Equations _regardless_ of where it is
emitted. You can argue that M.E. are not valid but
you cannot say they can be compatible with ballistic
theory.

George, starlight is not automatically adjusted to travel at c wrt little
planet earth.

According to your modification to ballistic theory,
that is exactly what happens, otherwise De Sitter's
argument holds good.

It initially moves at c wrt its source.

Sure, that's what SR says.

...but not in the sagnac explanation...

Sure it does, just analyse it in the momentarily
co-moving inertial frame.

Henry, you miss the whole point. No matter what
value you get, it is common to differently moving
sources hence incompatible with ballistic theory.

Never proven...that is just a stupid postulate.

Try to focus on the actual conversation and not
just trot out your tired old mantras every time
your hear some trigger phrase Henry, we are
talking about Maxwell's Equations. No matter
what values you use for e and u, you get a
single speed hence they are incompatible with
any model that requires variable speed at the
same location.

Your idea of a 'single speed' is totally meaningless without a reference.

Choose any common reference you like, the light from
two sources with different motions has the same speed
according to the equations, hence they cannot be
compatible with ballistic theory. It is a trivially obvious
argument Henry, I don't know why you are having so
much difficulty understanding it.

George, any use of the term 'speed' WITHOUT a reference shows the complete
ignorance of whoever uttered it.

That is not true, but it is too subtle to explain
to you.

I gather you are refereing to 'Lorentz invariance', a direct consequence of
aether theory.
There isn't any aether George.

For the moment simply realise that Maxwell's
Equations define a speed relative to the observer.

It defines a speed relative to the apparatus that measures the constants.

Exactly or "the observer" as scientists call that
apparatus.

It gives the speed in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus...

It gives the speed everywhere as long as you use the
values of mu and epsilon applicable to the location and
since those are single values it gives a single speed at
any location.

if a light
carrying medium exists...which is not the case.

The equations do not contain any such philosophical
baggage.

Nobody has checked whether differently moving apparatus get the same answer at
the same point. The required accuracy is not possible.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, we are
considering _one_ observer.

I like to consider differently moving observers, George.

I know you want to change the subject but I'm
not prepared to do that until you understand the
single-observer situation. Once you have grasped
that we can look at more complex versions but there
is no point trying with two observers when you don't
even understand the situation with one.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

Wrong, it says it is 1/sqrt(e * u) relative to the
apparatus, or 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) if there is no
matter in the region.

there is always matter present...the apparatus...and there are always fields
present IN the apparatus.

The fields are already included in the equations and
matter is included as the difference between u and u_0
etc..

..and differently moving observers will get even greater differences...

No, another observer sees the charges in motion, that's
all. The equations cater for that.

The apparatus essentially measures itself....and just
maybe comes up with an explanation of why light initially moves at c wrt its
source.

No, it is the impedance of the environment into which
the signal is launched and the limit as the density tends
to zero is about 377 ohms.

...and it is measured essentially by setting up both electric and magnetic
fields in the space being measured. That immediately alters the space

Nope, it doesn't introduce any charges into the space
so none of the parameters of the equation is changed.

Of course it alters the space.

Nope, it doesn't. If it did, the affect the
linear relationship, it would introduce second
or higher order terms and any signal propagating
through space woul produce harmonics. That
doesn't happen.

silly theory George...

Basic maths Henry, try squaring a sine wave.

....moreso
if 'empty' space is the subject.

Yes, I am describing the vacuum solution of
course since I used "_0" as the subscript.

Below the WDT, even fields contain 'holes'.

Not possible Henry, learn what the word "field"
means in maths.

Forget the maths. look at the physics....

They are one and the same.

Something makes space carrying a field different from space NOT carrying one.

No, a field is a mathematical set of values that is
defined at all points in space. Go and learn the
mathematical definition of a field.

the inverse square law breaks down.

A "hole" doesn't mean inverse square breaks
down, it would mean the field didn't have a
value to be calculated by any law. If there
is a value (including zero) then regardless
of how you calculate it, there is a field.

I'm suggesting that there is a limit to the inverse square law.

That has nothing to do with violating the definition
of what constitutes a field in mathematics.

A 'field' is a physical entity, in that it can cause observable effects in 3D
space and 1D time.
A field has a physical explanation..not just a mathematical one describing its
behavior...

I'm not interested in philosophical meandeings, stick
to the physics.

We're discussing the impedance of 'empty space'.

Yes Henry, look it up.

It is infinite....but cannot be measured....

It is 377 ohm and is easily measured.

No, that's the impedance of the apparatus.

Nope, the impedance of the apparatus is some other
value dependent on its construction. By varying that
construction and plotting the result, you can take
the limit and find the vacuum value.

Try proving a ruler is two-dimensonal because it
increases at one inch per inch, you can do it with
that sort of "logic" Henry.

That is not the same, george. I'm refering to a gradient...a relation between
TWO like dimensions.

Yes Henry, that was the point. You first assume there
are two dimensions and then use that to prove there
must be more than one :-o

Time is like a ruler, it measures just one dimension.

See. ...you are talking about the similarity between space and time INTERVALS..

Yes.

I'm discussing TIME FLOW.

I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that we commonly use the
word TIME in three different contexts. ....time 'interval'...time
'coordinate'...and time 'flow'....

An interval is the gap between coordinates. "Flow" is
a philosophical concept that has no scientific basis.

They are three distinctly different entities....we desribe the three with the
one word TIME. eg., "what is the time?" ..."how much time did that event
take?"...and ..."time seems to pass more quickly when one is busy"...

"Seems to", it is a perception only.

...the three spatial equivalents are...1) a line on a ruler, 2) the space
between two lines on a ruler

Yes, but ...

and 3) the ratio of lengths on two rulers a right
angles.

No, the equivalent would be someone saying "Inches
don't seem as long as when I was a youngster." but
inches remain just a version of item 2) and in reality
they haven't changed. Years seem shorter as you
get older (because they represent a smaller fraction
of your life than when you were a child) but they
aren't really changing.

It's hard to believe that physics is so naive with regard to TIME when it is so
advanced in other areas.

Your problem is separating philosophical musings
and psychological efects from hard science. Just
try to remember that the physics consists of just
two parts, the equations and the definitions that
relate variables in the equations to measurable
values, nothing more. Strip away the rest and
you'll make a lot more progress.

George

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:46:48 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:16:55 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

And I am ignoring you because the equations are linear
hence e_0 is the limiting value as the density tends
to zero so your "threshold" nonsense is irrelevant.

It's the limit value of the measuring apparatus...

Nope, it is the value in the region being measured and
since vacuum is the same everywhere (there is nothing
to differ) it has the same value universally.

Vacuum is NOT the same everywhere.

That would be true if I had omitted the "_0". Suppose

Presumably you agree that above the threshold SR
applies.

No George. Above the threshold, light entering such a region 'tends towards'
the Maxwellian speed wrt that region.

If the equations apply then it adopts that speed instantly.

Well, it all depends on the degree of vacuum.


It initially moves at c wrt its source.

Sure, that's what SR says.

...but not in the sagnac explanation...

Sure it does, just analyse it in the momentarily
co-moving inertial frame.

When drwn in the lab frame, the rays are shown to be moving at c+/-v wrt the
source.


Try to focus on the actual conversation and not
just trot out your tired old mantras every time
your hear some trigger phrase Henry, we are
talking about Maxwell's Equations. No matter
what values you use for e and u, you get a
single speed hence they are incompatible with
any model that requires variable speed at the
same location.

Your idea of a 'single speed' is totally meaningless without a reference.

Choose any common reference you like, the light from
two sources with different motions has the same speed
according to the equations, hence they cannot be
compatible with ballistic theory. It is a trivially obvious
argument Henry, I don't know why you are having so
much difficulty understanding it.

George, that is the 'local aether' theory. It probably works in air.
Why don't you use differently moving observers. They will get different
readings for the two constants at the same point.


Exactly or "the observer" as scientists call that
apparatus.

It gives the speed in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus...

It gives the speed everywhere as long as you use the
values of mu and epsilon applicable to the location and
since those are single values it gives a single speed at
any location.

George, if differently moving observers DO get the same readings for the
constants - as YOU insist - then you end up with two different light speeds at
the same point. ...c wrt each observer.
This is nonsensical.

if a light
carrying medium exists...which is not the case.

The equations do not contain any such philosophical
baggage.

It isn't philosophical. It is plain physics.
Velocity is always relative to a reference.

Nobody has checked whether differently moving apparatus get the same answer at
the same point. The required accuracy is not possible.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, we are
considering _one_ observer.

I like to consider differently moving observers, George.

I know you want to change the subject but I'm
not prepared to do that until you understand the
single-observer situation.

I have explained the single observer situation. What you claim applies in a
medium such as air.

If you try to perform the experiment in EMPTY space, you destroy the emptiness.
You simply measure the properties of the apparatus.

Once you have grasped
that we can look at more complex versions but there
is no point trying with two observers when you don't
even understand the situation with one.

George, you still cannot see that my 'two observer' experiment completely
destroys YOUR 'two source' one.


The fields are already included in the equations and
matter is included as the difference between u and u_0
etc..

..and differently moving observers will get even greater differences...

No, another observer sees the charges in motion, that's
all. The equations cater for that.

bull...

The apparatus essentially measures itself....and just

Nope, it doesn't. If it did, the affect the
linear relationship, it would introduce second
or higher order terms and any signal propagating
through space woul produce harmonics. That
doesn't happen.

silly theory George...

Basic maths Henry, try squaring a sine wave.

I don't see the connection

Not possible Henry, learn what the word "field"
means in maths.

Forget the maths. look at the physics....

They are one and the same.

Something makes space carrying a field different from space NOT carrying one.

No, a field is a mathematical set of values that is
defined at all points in space. Go and learn the
mathematical definition of a field.

Like I said, forget the maths...look at the physics....in terms of space and
time.

the inverse square law breaks down.

A "hole" doesn't mean inverse square breaks
down, it would mean the field didn't have a
value to be calculated by any law. If there
is a value (including zero) then regardless
of how you calculate it, there is a field.

I'm suggesting that there is a limit to the inverse square law.

That has nothing to do with violating the definition
of what constitutes a field in mathematics.

Mathematics doesn't define a field. It merely provides a tool that tells us how
we can hade a field.
Whether you like it or not, there has to be a physical model associated with
any entity that interacts with our physical space and time.

Nobody has so far produced a physical model of a field.
I have suggested it is a manifestation of a second mass dimension but that's
just a vague thought.

A 'field' is a physical entity, in that it can cause observable effects in 3D
space and 1D time.
A field has a physical explanation..not just a mathematical one describing its
behavior...

I'm not interested in philosophical meandeings, stick
to the physics.

This is of course the engineer talking....
Engineers are totally reliant on physicists for basic ideas.....


It is infinite....but cannot be measured....

It is 377 ohm and is easily measured.

No, that's the impedance of the apparatus.

Nope, the impedance of the apparatus is some other
value dependent on its construction. By varying that
construction and plotting the result, you can take
the limit and find the vacuum value.

The impedance of the space through which a field is passed in order to measure
the impedance is just the local impedance.

Try proving a ruler is two-dimensonal because it
increases at one inch per inch, you can do it with
that sort of "logic" Henry.

That is not the same, george. I'm refering to a gradient...a relation between
TWO like dimensions.

Yes Henry, that was the point. You first assume there
are two dimensions and then use that to prove there
must be more than one :-o

Time is like a ruler, it measures just one dimension.

See. ...you are talking about the similarity between space and time INTERVALS..

Yes.

I'm discussing TIME FLOW.

I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that we commonly use the
word TIME in three different contexts. ....time 'interval'...time
'coordinate'...and time 'flow'....

An interval is the gap between coordinates. "Flow" is
a philosophical concept that has no scientific basis.

.....the dependent engineer again reveals the limit of his intellectual
ability.......

They are three distinctly different entities....we desribe the three with the
one word TIME. eg., "what is the time?" ..."how much time did that event
take?"...and ..."time seems to pass more quickly when one is busy"...

"Seems to", it is a perception only.

....says the engineer....

...the three spatial equivalents are...1) a line on a ruler, 2) the space
between two lines on a ruler

Yes, but ...

and 3) the ratio of lengths on two rulers a right
angles.

No, the equivalent would be someone saying "Inches
don't seem as long as when I was a youngster." but
inches remain just a version of item 2) and in reality
they haven't changed.

NO.... the equivalent would be one ruler leaning at an angle other than
90....so the gradient is not unity.

Years seem shorter as you
get older (because they represent a smaller fraction
of your life than when you were a child) but they
aren't really changing.

I think it's simply because one has a lot more to think about.
I also have a theory that the thought processes slow down with age....so
psychological time DOES really slow...

It's hard to believe that physics is so naive with regard to TIME when it is so
advanced in other areas.

Your problem is separating philosophical musings
and psychological efects from hard science. Just
try to remember that the physics consists of just
two parts, the equations and the definitions that
relate variables in the equations to measurable
values, nothing more. Strip away the rest and
you'll make a lot more progress.

Engineering occasionally ventures into physics. Physics REGULARLY ventures into
philosophy.
For instance, Physics delved into religious philosophy to discover HOW and WHY
thunder follows a lightning strike.

George



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"George Dishman" wrote in
news
You mean the more energy it gets the lower its temperature. I suppose
that is
possible but it really changes the definition of temperature somewhat.

Indeed, I'm getting beyond my own knowledge of the
subject, just a point I noted in passing which I
thought might intrigue you, but it means the modelling
is complex, simple intuitive guesses are likely to
be quite wrong.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5...9_4_43001.html








--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:46:48 -0700, George Dishman

wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:16:55 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

And I am ignoring you because the equations are linear
hence e_0 is the limiting value as the density tends
to zero so your "threshold" nonsense is irrelevant.

It's the limit value of the measuring apparatus...

Nope, it is the value in the region being measured and
since vacuum is the same everywhere (there is nothing
to differ) it has the same value universally.

Vacuum is NOT the same everywhere.

Of course it is Henry, it contains nothing and you cannot
have degrees of nothing. Any fields exist everywhere or
nowhere.

That would be true if I had omitted the "_0". Suppose

Presumably you agree that above the threshold SR
applies.

No George. Above the threshold, light entering such a region 'tends
towards'
the Maxwellian speed wrt that region.

If the equations apply then it adopts that speed instantly.

Well, it all depends on the degree of vacuum.

:-)

Try to focus on the actual conversation and not
just trot out your tired old mantras every time
your hear some trigger phrase Henry, we are
talking about Maxwell's Equations. No matter
what values you use for e and u, you get a
single speed hence they are incompatible with
any model that requires variable speed at the
same location.

Your idea of a 'single speed' is totally meaningless without a
reference.

Choose any common reference you like, the light from
two sources with different motions has the same speed
according to the equations, hence they cannot be
compatible with ballistic theory. It is a trivially obvious
argument Henry, I don't know why you are having so
much difficulty understanding it.

George, that is the 'local aether' theory.

Nope, no refernces to an aether exist in the equations.

It probably works in air.
Why don't you use differently moving observers.

Because you cannot cope with one yet, you should
learn to walk before you try to run.

They will get different
readings for the two constants at the same point.

OK, two observers A and B calculate the speed of
light from two sources P and Q which emit along
parallel paths:

A
P ----
Q - ----
B -

A sees Q at rest and P and B moving to the right at
the same speed U. As calculated by A, the speed of
the light from P is vPA while that from Q is vQA and
similarly for vPB and vQB for observer B.

Using Maxwell's Equations, A finds vPA = vQA, so call
that v. B finds that vPB = vQB, call that v'. While
we can draw no conclusion as yet about the relation
between v and v', both observers agree that the speed
of the light from the two sources is the same.

Einstein took that prediction of Maxwell's Equations
and showed that in turn it necessitated that v' = v
so the value is invariant and we can give it the
symbol c, hence v = v' = c.

All of the above is pure maths which you should be
able to follow, or you can find the derivations all
over the net.

Exactly or "the observer" as scientists call that
apparatus.

It gives the speed in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus...

It gives the speed everywhere as long as you use the
values of mu and epsilon applicable to the location and
since those are single values it gives a single speed at
any location.

George, if differently moving observers DO get the same readings for the
constants - as YOU insist - ..

I don't, though I have now aded that above. What I
insist is that Maxwell's Equations give the same
speed for differently moving sources as calculated
from the point of view of _one_ observer. You need
Einstein's paper to make the next step to relate
the values obtained by _different_ observers.

then you end up with two different light speeds at
the same point. ...c wrt each observer.
This is nonsensical.

Yes Henry, it is nonsensical. Do the maths instead
of guessing and you will find you get a single speed.

if a light
carrying medium exists...which is not the case.

The equations do not contain any such philosophical
baggage.

It isn't philosophical. It is plain physics.

No, it is purely philosophical, there is no reference
to any aether in the equations which consitute the
physics.

Velocity is always relative to a reference.

Yes, the rest frame of the observer in the case of
Maxwell's Equations.

Nobody has checked whether differently moving apparatus get the same
answer at
the same point. The required accuracy is not possible.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, we are
considering _one_ observer.

I like to consider differently moving observers, George.

I know you want to change the subject but I'm
not prepared to do that until you understand the
single-observer situation.

I have explained the single observer situation. What you claim applies in
a
medium such as air.

No, air alters the ratio of the constants to their
vacuum values. Using e_o and u_0 gives you the vacuum
solution.

If you try to perform the experiment in EMPTY space, you destroy the
emptiness.
You simply measure the properties of the apparatus.

The equations remain what they are.

Once you have grasped
that we can look at more complex versions but there
is no point trying with two observers when you don't
even understand the situation with one.

George, you still cannot see that my 'two observer' experiment completely
destroys YOUR 'two source' one.

It builds on it and redicts SR as you can see above.
It is all just pure maths.

The fields are already included in the equations and
matter is included as the difference between u and u_0
etc..

..and differently moving observers will get even greater differences...

No, another observer sees the charges in motion, that's
all. The equations cater for that.

bull...

You need to learn more maths Henry.

The apparatus essentially measures itself....and just

Nope, it doesn't. If it did, the affect the
linear relationship, it would introduce second
or higher order terms and any signal propagating
through space would produce harmonics. That
doesn't happen.

silly theory George...

Basic maths Henry, try squaring a sine wave.

I don't see the connection

Consider the simple equation y = k * x. Let x
be a sine wave and so is y. Now make k slightly
dependent on x such as k = 1 + 0.1x. You will
find that y will have terms in x^2. Apply a
sine wave for x again and you discover y has a
component at twice the frequency. Such tiny
non-linearities are crucial in RF design and
if space was non linear that way, it would
produce harmonics.

Not possible Henry, learn what the word "field"
means in maths.

Forget the maths. look at the physics....

They are one and the same.

Something makes space carrying a field different from space NOT carrying
one.

No, a field is a mathematical set of values that is
defined at all points in space. Go and learn the
mathematical definition of a field.

Like I said, forget the maths...look at the physics..

The maths _is_ the physics, you want to talk
philosophy.

..in terms of space and
time.

the inverse square law breaks down.

A "hole" doesn't mean inverse square breaks
down, it would mean the field didn't have a
value to be calculated by any law. If there
is a value (including zero) then regardless
of how you calculate it, there is a field.

I'm suggesting that there is a limit to the inverse square law.

That has nothing to do with violating the definition
of what constitutes a field in mathematics.

Mathematics doesn't define a field. It merely provides a tool that tells
us how
we can hade a field.
Whether you like it or not, there has to be a physical model associated
with
any entity that interacts with our physical space and time.

Nope, only philosophers need models, physicists
only need maths.

Nobody has so far produced a physical model of a field.

I already told you the conventional model,
it is the mean effect of the momentum
transferred by the photons. I gave you the
physics a couple of times but you snipped
it as usual.

I have suggested it is a manifestation of a second mass dimension but
that's
just a vague thought.

Drivel.

A 'field' is a physical entity, in that it can cause observable effects
in 3D
space and 1D time.
A field has a physical explanation..not just a mathematical one
describing its
behavior...

I'm not interested in philosophical meandeings, stick
to the physics.

This is of course the engineer talking....

No, that's the physicist talking, the engineer just
gets on with using the tools.

Engineers are totally reliant on physicists for basic ideas.....

Nope, they are reliant for equations and their
associated instruction manual. Ideas are for the
philosophers who can't do the maths.

It is infinite....but cannot be measured....

It is 377 ohm and is easily measured.

No, that's the impedance of the apparatus.

Nope, the impedance of the apparatus is some other
value dependent on its construction. By varying that
construction and plotting the result, you can take
the limit and find the vacuum value.

The impedance of the space through which a field is passed in order to
measure
the impedance is just the local impedance.

Yes, and for a perfect vacuum it is close to 377 ohm.

Try proving a ruler is two-dimensonal because it
increases at one inch per inch, you can do it with
that sort of "logic" Henry.

That is not the same, george. I'm refering to a gradient...a relation
between
TWO like dimensions.

Yes Henry, that was the point. You first assume there
are two dimensions and then use that to prove there
must be more than one :-o

Time is like a ruler, it measures just one dimension.

See. ...you are talking about the similarity between space and time
INTERVALS..

Yes.

I'm discussing TIME FLOW.

I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that we commonly
use the
word TIME in three different contexts. ....time 'interval'...time
'coordinate'...and time 'flow'....

An interval is the gap between coordinates. "Flow" is
a philosophical concept that has no scientific basis.

....the dependent engineer again reveals the limit of his intellectual
ability.......

Yes, I seem to spend much of my time educating dumb
philosophers who cannot do maths.

They are three distinctly different entities....we desribe the three
with the
one word TIME. eg., "what is the time?" ..."how much time did that event
take?"...and ..."time seems to pass more quickly when one is busy"...

"Seems to", it is a perception only.

...says the engineer....

...the three spatial equivalents are...1) a line on a ruler, 2) the
space
between two lines on a ruler

Yes, but ...

and 3) the ratio of lengths on two rulers a right
angles.

No, the equivalent would be someone saying "Inches
don't seem as long as when I was a youngster." but
inches remain just a version of item 2) and in reality
they haven't changed.

NO....

Yes...

That's all this debate will ever be Henry, it is
pure philosophy speculating about an opinion. If
you want to change it to science, publish the
design for an instrument that measure the gradient
and gives repeatable results when built and used
by different users.

Years seem shorter as you
get older (because they represent a smaller fraction
of your life than when you were a child) but they
aren't really changing.

I think it's simply because one has a lot more to think about.
I also have a theory that the thought processes slow down with age....so
psychological time DOES really slow...

Yes, the latter is probably true and response times
certainly degrade. My view is that perceived time
scales so that our own response time is not quite
noticeable. You don't often try to catch a falling
object and have time to look at your hand thinking
"I wish it would go faster.", but our minds are
capable of it, that's what happens when people say
things appear to happen in slow motion during a
major accident.

However, that has nothing to do with time as measured
in physics which is what we were talking about.

It's hard to believe that physics is so naive with regard to TIME when
it is so
advanced in other areas.

Your problem is separating philosophical musings
and psychological efects from hard science. Just
try to remember that the physics consists of just
two parts, the equations and the definitions that
relate variables in the equations to measurable
values, nothing more. Strip away the rest and
you'll make a lot more progress.

Engineering occasionally ventures into physics. Physics REGULARLY ventures
into
philosophy.

Sure, and physics used to be called "Natural
Philosophy" but that changed a long time ago and now
we draw a clear distinction between them. Physics is
_only_ the mathematical models that relate measurable
values, nothing more. Things change Henry, and you
need to catch up.

For instance, Physics delved into religious philosophy to discover HOW and
WHY
thunder follows a lightning strike.

You will find many examples from the past but Newton
defined "absolute space" as part of basis for the
Principia and then went on to produce the equations
of motion which were Galilean Invariant and had no
hint of absolute motion in them. The philosophical
motivations can disappear once the physics is worked
through, and the same is true of Maxwell's equations.

George

"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"George Dishman" wrote in
news
You mean the more energy it gets the lower its temperature. I suppose
that is
possible but it really changes the definition of temperature somewhat.

Indeed, I'm getting beyond my own knowledge of the
subject, just a point I noted in passing which I
thought might intrigue you, but it means the modelling
is complex, simple intuitive guesses are likely to
be quite wrong.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5...9_4_43001.html

Sadly I am not a subscriber.

I noted the comment from this powerpoint file:

http://tinyurl.com/2um7lc

Slide 51.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in
:


"bz" wrote in message
98.139...
"George Dishman" wrote in
news
You mean the more energy it gets the lower its temperature. I suppose
that is
possible but it really changes the definition of temperature somewhat.

Indeed, I'm getting beyond my own knowledge of the
subject, just a point I noted in passing which I
thought might intrigue you, but it means the modelling
is complex, simple intuitive guesses are likely to
be quite wrong.


http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5...9_4_43001.html

Sadly I am not a subscriber.

I noted the comment from this powerpoint file:

http://tinyurl.com/2um7lc

That didn't work for me
Tomorrow, when I am back on campus, I will grab a copy of the important
information for you.

From what I remember, you were essentially right, adding energy causes the
temperature to drop.

It had something to do with 'clusters' breaking up and causing the entropy
to increase by a large amount which, of course, drops the temperature.

I hope I remembered it correctly

That does seem to make sense to me right now.
Sort of like a phase change absorbing energy (like ice melting).












--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On 20 Sep, 00:43, bz wrote:
"George Dishman" wrote :







"bz" wrote in message
. 198.139...
"George Dishman" wrote in
news

You mean the more energy it gets the lower its temperature. I suppose
that is
possible but it really changes the definition of temperature somewhat.

Indeed, I'm getting beyond my own knowledge of the
subject, just a point I noted in passing which I
thought might intrigue you, but it means the modelling
is complex, simple intuitive guesses are likely to
be quite wrong.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0295-5...9_4_43001.html

Sadly I am not a subscriber.

I noted the comment from this powerpoint file:

http://tinyurl.com/2um7lc

That didn't work for me

I checked when I created the 'tiny' link but it
doesn't seem to be there now. You still get the
reference on Google if you enter "ph2910 week10"
(without the quotes). Luckily I kept a copy :-)

Tomorrow, when I am back on campus, I will grab a copy of the important
information for you.

Thanks, I would appreciate that.

From what I remember, you were essentially right, adding energy causes the
temperature to drop.

It had something to do with 'clusters' breaking up and causing the entropy
to increase by a large amount which, of course, drops the temperature.

I hope I remembered it correctly

That does seem to make sense to me right now.
Sort of like a phase change absorbing energy (like ice melting).

I follow. I think the He++ ionisation in Cepheids
is much the same, pushing in more energy causes
the ionisation to increase rather than temperature
hence there is no negative feedback to stabilise
the layer.

George

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:14:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

It's the limit value of the measuring apparatus...

Nope, it is the value in the region being measured and
since vacuum is the same everywhere (there is nothing
to differ) it has the same value universally.

Vacuum is NOT the same everywhere.

Of course it is Henry, it contains nothing and you cannot
have degrees of nothing. Any fields exist everywhere or
nowhere.

You have to get rigth away from this prehistoric view George.

There are different degrees of emptiness....and they are very significant.


Your idea of a 'single speed' is totally meaningless without a
reference.

Choose any common reference you like, the light from
two sources with different motions has the same speed
according to the equations, hence they cannot be
compatible with ballistic theory. It is a trivially obvious
argument Henry, I don't know why you are having so
much difficulty understanding it.

George, that is the 'local aether' theory.

Nope, no refernces to an aether exist in the equations.

It probably works in air.
Why don't you use differently moving observers.

Because you cannot cope with one yet, you should
learn to walk before you try to run.

They will get different
readings for the two constants at the same point.

OK, two observers A and B calculate the speed of
light from two sources P and Q which emit along
parallel paths:

A
P ----
Q - ----
B -

A sees Q at rest and P and B moving to the right at
the same speed U. As calculated by A, the speed of
the light from P is vPA while that from Q is vQA and
similarly for vPB and vQB for observer B.

Using Maxwell's Equations, A finds vPA = vQA, so call
that v. B finds that vPB = vQB, call that v'. While
we can draw no conclusion as yet about the relation
between v and v', both observers agree that the speed
of the light from the two sources is the same.

Einstein took that prediction of Maxwell's Equations
and showed that in turn it necessitated that v' = v
so the value is invariant and we can give it the
symbol c, hence v = v' = c.

All of the above is pure maths which you should be
able to follow, or you can find the derivations all
over the net.

Exactly or "the observer" as scientists call that
apparatus.

It gives the speed in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus...

It gives the speed everywhere as long as you use the
values of mu and epsilon applicable to the location and
since those are single values it gives a single speed at
any location.

George, if differently moving observers DO get the same readings for the
constants - as YOU insist - ..

I don't, though I have now aded that above. What I
insist is that Maxwell's Equations give the same
speed for differently moving sources as calculated
from the point of view of _one_ observer. You need
Einstein's paper to make the next step to relate
the values obtained by _different_ observers.

then you end up with two different light speeds at
the same point. ...c wrt each observer.
This is nonsensical.

Yes Henry, it is nonsensical. Do the maths instead
of guessing and you will find you get a single speed.

if a light
carrying medium exists...which is not the case.

The equations do not contain any such philosophical
baggage.

It isn't philosophical. It is plain physics.

No, it is purely philosophical, there is no reference
to any aether in the equations which consitute the
physics.

Velocity is always relative to a reference.

Yes, the rest frame of the observer in the case of
Maxwell's Equations.

Nobody has checked whether differently moving apparatus get the same
answer at
the same point. The required accuracy is not possible.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, we are
considering _one_ observer.

I like to consider differently moving observers, George.

I know you want to change the subject but I'm
not prepared to do that until you understand the
single-observer situation.

I have explained the single observer situation. What you claim applies in
a
medium such as air.

No, air alters the ratio of the constants to their
vacuum values. Using e_o and u_0 gives you the vacuum
solution.

If you try to perform the experiment in EMPTY space, you destroy the
emptiness.
You simply measure the properties of the apparatus.

The equations remain what they are.

Once you have grasped
that we can look at more complex versions but there
is no point trying with two observers when you don't
even understand the situation with one.

George, you still cannot see that my 'two observer' experiment completely
destroys YOUR 'two source' one.

It builds on it and redicts SR as you can see above.
It is all just pure maths.

The fields are already included in the equations and
matter is included as the difference between u and u_0
etc..

..and differently moving observers will get even greater differences...

No, another observer sees the charges in motion, that's
all. The equations cater for that.

bull...

You need to learn more maths Henry.

The apparatus essentially measures itself....and just

Nope, it doesn't. If it did, the affect the
linear relationship, it would introduce second
or higher order terms and any signal propagating
through space would produce harmonics. That
doesn't happen.

silly theory George...

Basic maths Henry, try squaring a sine wave.

I don't see the connection

Consider the simple equation y = k * x. Let x
be a sine wave and so is y. Now make k slightly
dependent on x such as k = 1 + 0.1x. You will
find that y will have terms in x^2. Apply a
sine wave for x again and you discover y has a
component at twice the frequency. Such tiny
non-linearities are crucial in RF design and
if space was non linear that way, it would
produce harmonics.

Not possible Henry, learn what the word "field"
means in maths.

Forget the maths. look at the physics....

They are one and the same.

Something makes space carrying a field different from space NOT carrying
one.

No, a field is a mathematical set of values that is
defined at all points in space. Go and learn the
mathematical definition of a field.

Like I said, forget the maths...look at the physics..

The maths _is_ the physics, you want to talk
philosophy.

..in terms of space and
time.

the inverse square law breaks down.

A "hole" doesn't mean inverse square breaks
down, it would mean the field didn't have a
value to be calculated by any law. If there
is a value (including zero) then regardless
of how you calculate it, there is a field.

I'm suggesting that there is a limit to the inverse square law.

That has nothing to do with violating the definition
of what constitutes a field in mathematics.

Mathematics doesn't define a field. It merely provides a tool that tells
us how
we can hade a field.
Whether you like it or not, there has to be a physical model associated
with
any entity that interacts with our physical space and time.

Nope, only philosophers need models, physicists
only need maths.

Nobody has so far produced a physical model of a field.

I already told you the conventional model,
it is the mean effect of the momentum
transferred by the photons. I gave you the
physics a couple of times but you snipped
it as usual.

I have suggested it is a manifestation of a second mass dimension but
that's
just a vague thought.

Drivel.

A 'field' is a physical entity, in that it can cause observable effects
in 3D
space and 1D time.
A field has a physical explanation..not just a mathematical one
describing its
behavior...

I'm not interested in philosophical meandeings, stick
to the physics.

This is of course the engineer talking....

No, that's the physicist talking, the engineer just
gets on with using the tools.

Engineers are totally reliant on physicists for basic ideas.....

Nope, they are reliant for equations and their
associated instruction manual. Ideas are for the
philosophers who can't do the maths.

It is infinite....but cannot be measured....

It is 377 ohm and is easily measured.

No, that's the impedance of the apparatus.

Nope, the impedance of the apparatus is some other
value dependent on its construction. By varying that
construction and plotting the result, you can take
the limit and find the vacuum value.

The impedance of the space through which a field is passed in order to
measure
the impedance is just the local impedance.

Yes, and for a perfect vacuum it is close to 377 ohm.

Try proving a ruler is two-dimensonal because it
increases at one inch per inch, you can do it with
that sort of "logic" Henry.

That is not the same, george. I'm refering to a gradient...a relation
between
TWO like dimensions.

Yes Henry, that was the point. You first assume there
are two dimensions and then use that to prove there
must be more than one :-o

Time is like a ruler, it measures just one dimension.

See. ...you are talking about the similarity between space and time
INTERVALS..

Yes.

I'm discussing TIME FLOW.

I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that we commonly
use the
word TIME in three different contexts. ....time 'interval'...time
'coordinate'...and time 'flow'....

An interval is the gap between coordinates. "Flow" is
a philosophical concept that has no scientific basis.

....the dependent engineer again reveals the limit of his intellectual
ability.......

Yes, I seem to spend much of my time educating dumb
philosophers who cannot do maths.

They are three distinctly different entities....we desribe the three
with the
one word TIME. eg., "what is the time?" ..."how much time did that event
take?"...and ..."time seems to pass more quickly when one is busy"...

"Seems to", it is a perception only.

...says the engineer....

...the three spatial equivalents are...1) a line on a ruler, 2) the
space
between two lines on a ruler

Yes, but ...

and 3) the ratio of lengths on two rulers a right
angles.

No, the equivalent would be someone saying "Inches
don't seem as long as when I was a youngster." but
inches remain just a version of item 2) and in reality
they haven't changed.

NO....

Yes...

That's all this debate will ever be Henry, it is
pure philosophy speculating about an opinion. If
you want to change it to science, publish the
design for an instrument that measure the gradient
and gives repeatable results when built and used
by different users.

Years seem shorter as you
get older (because they represent a smaller fraction
of your life than when you were a child) but they
aren't really changing.

I think it's simply because one has a lot more to think about.
I also have a theory that the thought processes slow down with age....so
psychological time DOES really slow...

Yes, the latter is probably true and response times
certainly degrade. My view is that perceived time
scales so that our own response time is not quite
noticeable. You don't often try to catch a falling
object and have time to look at your hand thinking
"I wish it would go faster.", but our minds are
capable of it, that's what happens when people say
things appear to happen in slow motion during a
major accident.

However, that has nothing to do with time as measured
in physics which is what we were talking about.

It's hard to believe that physics is so naive with regard to TIME when
it is so
advanced in other areas.

Your problem is separating philosophical musings
and psychological efects from hard science. Just
try to remember that the physics consists of just
two parts, the equations and the definitions that
relate variables in the equations to measurable
values, nothing more. Strip away the rest and
you'll make a lot more progress.

Engineering occasionally ventures into physics. Physics REGULARLY ventures
into
philosophy.

Sure, and physics used to be called "Natural
Philosophy" but that changed a long time ago and now
we draw a clear distinction between them. Physics is
_only_ the mathematical models that relate measurable
values, nothing more. Things change Henry, and you
need to catch up.

For instance, Physics delved into religious philosophy to discover HOW and
WHY
thunder follows a lightning strike.

You will find many examples from the past but Newton
defined "absolute space" as part of basis for the
Principia and then went on to produce the equations
of motion which were Galilean Invariant and had no
hint of absolute motion in them. The philosophical
motivations can disappear once the physics is worked
through, and the same is true of Maxwell's equations.

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:14:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:46:48 -0700, George Dishman


Vacuum is NOT the same everywhere.

Of course it is Henry, it contains nothing and you cannot
have degrees of nothing. Any fields exist everywhere or
nowhere.

that's the old belief....



Choose any common reference you like, the light from
two sources with different motions has the same speed
according to the equations, hence they cannot be
compatible with ballistic theory. It is a trivially obvious
argument Henry, I don't know why you are having so
much difficulty understanding it.

George, that is the 'local aether' theory.

Nope, no refernces to an aether exist in the equations.

It probably works in air.
Why don't you use differently moving observers.

Because you cannot cope with one yet, you should
learn to walk before you try to run.

They will get different
readings for the two constants at the same point.

OK, two observers A and B calculate the speed of
light from two sources P and Q which emit along
parallel paths:

A
P ----
Q - ----
B -

A sees Q at rest and P and B moving to the right at
the same speed U. As calculated by A, the speed of
the light from P is vPA while that from Q is vQA and
similarly for vPB and vQB for observer B.

Using Maxwell's Equations, A finds vPA = vQA, so call
that v.

That is the local speed in the immediate vicinity of the measuring apparatus.

B finds that vPB = vQB, call that v'. While
we can draw no conclusion as yet about the relation
between v and v', both observers agree that the speed
of the light from the two sources is the same.

....and they conclude wrongly...and it is only the same if they measure the same
values for the constants. ther is no evidence that they do...

Einstein took that prediction of Maxwell's Equations
and showed that in turn it necessitated that v' = v
so the value is invariant and we can give it the
symbol c, hence v = v' = c.

.....and this is a major reason why he was wrong....

All of the above is pure maths which you should be
able to follow, or you can find the derivations all
over the net.

...and it's all wrong....


George, if differently moving observers DO get the same readings for the
constants - as YOU insist - ..

I don't, though I have now aded that above. What I
insist is that Maxwell's Equations give the same
speed for differently moving sources as calculated
from the point of view of _one_ observer. You need
Einstein's paper to make the next step to relate
the values obtained by _different_ observers.

I have explained that all the measurements give is the properties of the space
near the apparatus....they don't tell you anything about the relative speed of
light at the source. It changes along the way...


if a light
carrying medium exists...which is not the case.

The equations do not contain any such philosophical
baggage.

It isn't philosophical. It is plain physics.

No, it is purely philosophical, there is no reference
to any aether in the equations which consitute the
physics.

Velocity is always relative to a reference.

Yes, the rest frame of the observer in the case of
Maxwell's Equations.

Not so....Maxwell derived them for the rest frame of the absolute aether.



I have explained the single observer situation. What you claim applies in
a
medium such as air.

No, air alters the ratio of the constants to their
vacuum values. Using e_o and u_0 gives you the vacuum
solution.

If you try to perform the experiment in EMPTY space, you destroy the
emptiness.
You simply measure the properties of the apparatus.

The equations remain what they are.

Once you have grasped
that we can look at more complex versions but there
is no point trying with two observers when you don't
even understand the situation with one.

George, you still cannot see that my 'two observer' experiment completely
destroys YOUR 'two source' one.

It builds on it and redicts SR as you can see above.
It is all just pure maths.

You simply measure the properties of the apparatus.

The fields are already included in the equations and
matter is included as the difference between u and u_0
etc..

..and differently moving observers will get even greater differences...

No, another observer sees the charges in motion, that's
all. The equations cater for that.

bull...

You need to learn more maths Henry.

....give me another lesson about star magnitudes george...

silly theory George...

Basic maths Henry, try squaring a sine wave.

I don't see the connection

Consider the simple equation y = k * x. Let x
be a sine wave and so is y. Now make k slightly
dependent on x such as k = 1 + 0.1x. You will
find that y will have terms in x^2. Apply a
sine wave for x again and you discove