FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
tomgee1
science forum Guru


Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):

If they knew the answers, they would be the first to tell you. But

they don't,
so all they do is laugh at your questions.
Quote:


Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

No... the postal system and the library is medium.

Physics is not semantics. Use this:
D, Dielectric Constant, Electric Permittivity,
Electric Susceptibility, Ewald-Oseen Extinction Theorem,
Fresnel Equations, H, Magnetic Permeability,
Magnetic Susceptibility, Relative Permeability
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Dielectric.html

Bravo for your Fightback! stance! Some people here think

they know it all and so they commonly make gross errors in
their interpretations of what they read.
Quote:

1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

Learn what a dielectric is.

Which means, obviously, "I don't know". To me, it's a good question,

but I don't know the answer either. Assuming that by "same effect"
you refer to the effect a medium has on a body or a wave moving
through it, it would appear that high p and p would have less of an
effect on them.
Quote:

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

Well, that is the $64k question, isn't it? You should remember that

matter and waves require a medium, so you are not just talking bout
objects. The answer to your question will depend on just precisely
what the medium is about and how it "handles" matter and waves.

If we accept Newton's 1st law of motion as-is, we assume that space
has the same p and p throughout the entire universe, and since the
sole object in his 1st law cannot be stationary wrt the universe, it is

in motion and it will continue indefinitely in motion. Your question
is
what will happen to it, and here we can probably guess that some-
thing will happen to it sooner or later, for sure.

The medium would have no cause to break down, in view of the fact
that water waves do not break down the water medium, they only
undulate it. Mediums are disturbed waves and matter; they are not
otherwise changed, AFAIK. Mediums react to the passing of objects
and wave through them, but they soon return to the states they were
in before they were disturbed. I don't know of an instance where a
medium is any more disturbed than that.

So what happens to the object? I happen to believe that a medium
acts to slow objects and waves, and thus, it is not a free ride. Some
energy must be expended for the motion involved. Newton believed
there is an inherent force in objects that cause them to continue in
motion when no other forces are acting upon them. Water waves are
given their impetus by their source and when that impetus is "used up",

the disturbance subsides. Em waves are distinct from other waves in
that they do not move due to the impetus from their source. There is
therefore another process that occurs in the motion of em waves, but
it is still motion in a medium.

For objects, however, even their inherent force will eventually be used

up, and then it will probably be transformed into something else. My
model suggests that "something else" is Dark Matter, which I define
as negative matter corresponding to Dirac's matter in an extraordinary
state. Assuming the loss of all energy in a mass transforms it into a
negative mass, the medium of light and matter is DM, which my model
suggests is what came out of the BB and filled absolute space to the
extent it defines the circumference of our universe.
Quote:

Read the URL about dielectrics.

Again meaning, "I don't know".

..
Quote:
Is this exactly the type of links you've been feeding me all along Sue?
No wonder I couldn't comprehend the garbage.

You think that STUPID link is supposed to expain what a dielectric is.
Those are only calculations on the forces on a dielectric, and let me
say giving this type of garbage to anyone would obviously confuse them.

I KNOW WHAT A DIELECTRIC IS.

You must learn that Sue is not alone in giving you lists of website

that
are a waste of time because they do not explicitly support the idea
that
the poster is purportedly supporting with those websites. Most of the
time, it is their way of admitting they don't know but don't want
others
to know they don't know. You see, that's important for people here,
and
they do everything they can to hide what they don't know.
Quote:

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)

No... Read the URL and associated links about dielectrics.

YOU ARE CRAZY SUE, 100% CRAZY, read your own stupid link, it's a bunch
of calculations is all it is.

Mebbe she is, but she's not in the minority here.

THERE ARE LINKS EXPLAINYING the principales a 100 times better then
your link.
I hope you never become a teacher.

I would guess she already is one. The College of Education does some

strong brainwashing of its own, mainly that students must be forced to
learn and that parents are to blame for their children's failures.
Combine
that with science and you have a distinct type of scientist who
believes
everyone but teachers know what's right and what's wrong.
Unfortunately,
that does not prevent them from behaving badly anyway at times.
Quote:

You still won't be able to explain why a capacitor ruptures
but you might be able to explain how it works.

??? Your trying to push energy beyond the limits of the insulator.
duhhh.

You taught her something she evidently did not know, going by her own

statement above. Don't expect any thanks for that, though.
Quote:

(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)

Interesting suggestion. It would follow that a high density of the

constituents of a medium, which are what facilitate the motion of
things through it, would make said motion easier the more of those
constituents in it per a given unit of it. If what you say about
mediums
with high p and p also have a high density, your suggestion is valid.
Quote:

Chuck Yeager fell back to earth... so the sound theory of gravity
is an unsound concept. Forget it!
Charge a comb and learn some physics. Surprised)

Once again Sue, ask anyone the electric force is NOT A POPULAR theory
on curved space, only gravity force.

LEARN THE MAIN PRINCIPALES, and do not confuse people without
specifying these are your hypotheses on unfound science.

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):



Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)


(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)


This did not help much, sadly.
About the only thing I can pick out of here to respond to is this:
Permeability and permittivity do NOT represent a friction-like drag
coefficient to things traveling through it. A particle traveling
through a dielectric does NOT behave like a space capsule re-entering
Earth's atmosphere. Do not confuse Cerenkov radiation with the heating
of an ablation shield.


I would agree the term is confusing but a dielectric is indeed an
insulator (although some capacitors/batteries discharge with type due
to the pore insulation, yet high permittivity permits a larger static
charge) that permtis some forces to pass and others not to pass hence
the term porosity.

Example: If electrons & protons were positive and negatively charged
balls, and you had a fence whose holes were smaller then the balls in
between them.... then this fence would behave as a dielectric.

But that is NOT how dielectrics work in general.


Batteries and capacitors even self-discharge with time, and this occurs
through the dielectric, the higher the permittivity(such as a thinner
dielectric) the easier for self-discharging, even though higher
permittivity permits a battery or capacitor to hold more charges.

I omitted volume calculations(hence space) for the equations below on
purpose to show the similarities only.

1. Meaning vector(line(2D) or point (1D)) vs vector field(volume(3D))
or energy wave(2D) vs energy field (3D)
2. Or perhaps instead force (total force= total area(=2D)) vs pressure
(force per inch^2 (=1D?))

Therefore omitting the volume calculations:

1. Capacitance = permittivity

2. A little calculations only:

Capacitance = permittivity / thickness

The thicker the dielectric, the less charge can be held
The thicker the medium, the less charge can be held

Therefore the MORE MEDIUM you have the less charge (and charge force).


3. Capacitance = permittvity /thickness x area (same as total Force
(charge force) = pressure x area

((excluding area(2D): insulation or semi-conduction / thickness =
pressure (the thicker the insulation (the medium) the less pressure
can pass through, the more surface area the more pressure can pass true
(thickness of medium(permittivity) x area = 3D space).






Quote:

The fence is also an insulator, and in electronic terms (DRAM,
Transistors barrier, capacitors, etc...) a SEMI-CONDUCTOR, if a
sufficiently high charge was applied to the fence (too much
protons,electrons), the fence would rupture (couldn't handle the stress
applied to it from the increased force).


google search: dielectric rupture

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):



Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)


(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)


This did not help much, sadly.
About the only thing I can pick out of here to respond to is this:
Permeability and permittivity do NOT represent a friction-like drag
coefficient to things traveling through it. A particle traveling
through a dielectric does NOT behave like a space capsule re-entering
Earth's atmosphere. Do not confuse Cerenkov radiation with the heating
of an ablation shield.


I would agree the term is confusing but a dielectric is indeed an
insulator (although some capacitors/batteries discharge with type due
to the pore insulation, yet high permittivity permits a larger static
charge) that permtis some forces to pass and others not to pass hence
the term porosity.

Example: If electrons & protons were positive and negatively charged
balls, and you had a fence whose holes were smaller then the balls in
between them.... then this fence would behave as a dielectric.

But that is NOT how dielectrics work in general.

Quote:

The fence is also an insulator, and in electronic terms (DRAM,
Transistors barrier, capacitors, etc...) a SEMI-CONDUCTOR, if a
sufficiently high charge was applied to the fence (too much
protons,electrons), the fence would rupture (couldn't handle the stress
applied to it from the increased force).


google search: dielectric rupture

PD
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):



Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)


(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)


This did not help much, sadly.
About the only thing I can pick out of here to respond to is this:
Permeability and permittivity do NOT represent a friction-like drag
coefficient to things traveling through it. A particle traveling
through a dielectric does NOT behave like a space capsule re-entering
Earth's atmosphere. Do not confuse Cerenkov radiation with the heating
of an ablation shield.


I would agree the term is confusing but a dielectric is indeed an
insulator (although some capacitors/batteries discharge with type due
to the pore insulation, yet high permittivity permits a larger static
charge) that permtis some forces to pass and others not to pass hence
the term porosity.

Example: If electrons & protons were positive and negatively charged
balls, and you had a fence whose holes were smaller then the balls in
between them.... then this fence would behave as a dielectric.

The fence is also an insulator, and in electronic terms (DRAM,
Transistors barrier, capacitors, etc...) a SEMI-CONDUCTOR, if a
sufficiently high charge was applied to the fence (too much
protons,electrons), the fence would rupture (couldn't handle the stress
applied to it from the increased force).


google search: dielectric rupture

> PD
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):



Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

No... the postal system and the library is medium.

Physics is not semantics. Use this:
D, Dielectric Constant, Electric Permittivity,
Electric Susceptibility, Ewald-Oseen Extinction Theorem,
Fresnel Equations, H, Magnetic Permeability,
Magnetic Susceptibility, Relative Permeability
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Dielectric.html


1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

Learn what a dielectric is.

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

Read the URL about dielectrics.

Is this exactly the type of links you've been feeding me all along Sue?
No wonder I couldn't comprehend the garbage.

You think that STUPID link is supposed to expain what a dielectric is.
Those are only calculations on the forces on a dielectric, and let me
say giving this type of garbage to anyone would obviously confuse them.

I KNOW WHAT A DIELECTRIC IS.


Quote:

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)

No... Read the URL and associated links about dielectrics.

YOU ARE CRAZY SUE, 100% CRAZY, read your own stupid link, it's a bunch
of calculations is all it is.

THERE ARE LINKS EXPLAINYING the principales a 100 times better then
your link.
I hope you never become a teacher.

Quote:
You still won't be able to explain why a capacitor ruptures
but you might be able to explain how it works.

??? Your trying to push energy beyond the limits of the insulator.
duhhh.

Quote:



(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)

Chuck Yeager fell back to earth... so the sound theory of gravity
is an unsound concept. Forget it!
Charge a comb and learn some physics. Surprised)


Once again Sue, ask anyone the electric force is NOT A POPULAR theory
on curved space, only gravity force.

LEARN THE MAIN PRINCIPALES, and do not confuse people without
specifying these are your hypotheses on unfound science.

Quote:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):



Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)


(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)


This did not help much, sadly.
About the only thing I can pick out of here to respond to is this:
Permeability and permittivity do NOT represent a friction-like drag
coefficient to things traveling through it. A particle traveling
through a dielectric does NOT behave like a space capsule re-entering
Earth's atmosphere. Do not confuse Cerenkov radiation with the heating
of an ablation shield.

PD
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:25 am    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):



Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

No... the postal system and the library is medium.

Physics is not semantics. Use this:
<< D, Dielectric Constant, Electric Permittivity,
Electric Susceptibility, Ewald-Oseen Extinction Theorem,
Fresnel Equations, H, Magnetic Permeability,
Magnetic Susceptibility, Relative Permeability >>
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Dielectric.html

Quote:

1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

Learn what a dielectric is.
Quote:

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

Read the URL about dielectrics.
Quote:

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)

No... Read the URL and associated links about dielectrics.
You still won't be able to explain why a capacitor ruptures
but you might be able to explain how it works.

Quote:


(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)

Chuck Yeager fell back to earth... so the sound theory of gravity
is an unsound concept. Forget it!
Charge a comb and learn some physics. Surprised)

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Sue...
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:20 am    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

jambaugh wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to p...

You are confusing the equations with one mechanical model which helped
inspire the equations. The model assumes an absolute space but the
*equations* are independent of such a choice. The mechanical model
fixes a particular inertial frame (absolute space) and describes
electricity and magnetism in terms of distinct types of mechanical
motions of the undelying medium (aether).

But you can pick one of a continuum of distinct isomorphic models
corresponding to the distinct inertial frames (moving aethers vs.
stationary aether relative to a given observer). In the end the
equations themselves are covariant and form-invariant with respect to
Lorentz tranformations and thus this choice of model (aether) is
arbitrary. Since it is the equations which describe empirical
quantities (E and B fields measured by particular observers) while the
model describes a hypothetical substance which is not directly measured
or measurable, the scientific utility of that choice of model is nil
and distinct from the actual theory. The quantities of permittivity
and permability began as qualities of the unobserved substance in the
models. They themselves are in fact relativistically invariant
quantities and thus their (vacuum) measurement does not select out one
of those models. Their derivation from a specific model is immaterial.
Their observation in terms of how much effect one charge's motion has
on other charges' motions is all that matters.

I know regardless of the frame, same as light's speed, permittivy and
permeability measurements remain the same but see the two questions I
posed to PD and if you know the answers?

Quote:

The empirical data confirms the equations and has nothing to say about
the choice of models behind them (when --as in this case-- there is a
choice). We thus in such a case excise the necessity of the model. We
remove any need to refer to a luminerferous aether.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that there is an absolute
frame of reference.
But Maxwell's equations which are Lorentz invariant will not tell you
anything about which is the "true" inertial frame. Indeed they predict
that no electromagnetic phenomenon will ever provide any such
information. The only way such a frame can be determined is if you
find a more accurate set of equations (in terms of empirical
predictions) which are not relativistically invariant. Either you need
a new force or a new theory about the existing forces. Maxwell's
equations and the relativistic equations describing gravitation, weak,
and strong interactions must be supplanted with a more empirically
valid set of non-relativistic equations. Until you find such you are
practicing religion and not science because you are arguing that a
given statement must be taken on faith instead of by empirical
evidence.

Regards,
James Baugh
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:10 am    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

jambaugh wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to p...

You are confusing the equations with one mechanical model which helped
inspire the equations. The model assumes an absolute space but the
*equations* are independent of such a choice. The mechanical model
fixes a particular inertial frame (absolute space) and describes
electricity and magnetism in terms of distinct types of mechanical
motions of the undelying medium (aether).

But you can pick one of a continuum of distinct isomorphic models
corresponding to the distinct inertial frames (moving aethers vs.
stationary aether relative to a given observer). In the end the
equations themselves are covariant and form-invariant with respect to

I would agree if not for the effect that all frames are related to the
permittiviy and permeability of space (and the speed of light).

Quote:
Lorentz tranformations and thus this choice of model (aether) is
arbitrary. Since it is the equations which describe empirical
quantities (E and B fields measured by particular observers) while the
model describes a hypothetical substance which is not directly measured
or measurable, the scientific utility of that choice of model is nil
and distinct from the actual theory. The quantities of permittivity
and permability began as qualities of the unobserved substance in the
models. They themselves are in fact relativistically invariant
quantities and thus their (vacuum) measurement does not select out one
of those models. Their derivation from a specific model is immaterial.
Their observation in terms of how much effect one charge's motion has
on other charges' motions is all that matters.

The empirical data confirms the equations and has nothing to say about
the choice of models behind them (when --as in this case-- there is a
choice). We thus in such a case excise the necessity of the model. We
remove any need to refer to a luminerferous aether.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that there is an absolute
frame of reference.
But Maxwell's equations which are Lorentz invariant will not tell you
anything about which is the "true" inertial frame. Indeed they predict
that no electromagnetic phenomenon will ever provide any such
information. The only way such a frame can be determined is if you
find a more accurate set of equations (in terms of empirical
predictions) which are not relativistically invariant. Either you need
a new force or a new theory about the existing forces. Maxwell's
equations and the relativistic equations describing gravitation, weak,
and strong interactions must be supplanted with a more empirically
valid set of non-relativistic equations. Until you find such you are
practicing religion and not science because you are arguing that a
given statement must be taken on faith instead of by empirical
evidence.

Regards,
James Baugh
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:07 am    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Hey it's only a hypotheses.

OK! Here goes ***BUT*** someone must truly know the answer to the two
small questions below to clearly remove this hypotheses (and if the
answer AGREES with the hypotheses, it could very easily jump from
theory to ********LAW*********(read the question before laughing
please...ohhh too late, read anyway):



Prelude: IMPERMEABLE (permeability) UMBRELLA means the rain traveling
through is impenatratable (likewise many locations permittivity is a
word linked to porosity of a material).

Question (all mediums have a permeability and permittivity):

1. Does a LOW permeability(and permittivity) of a medium have the SAME
EFFECT but LESS then a medium with HIGH permeability (and
permittivity)?

2. What effects occur for mediums with EXTREMELY HIGH PERMEABILITY (and
permittivity), does the uninterrupted velocity of the object(or
electron or photon) travelling through the medium decrease with time,
does the object burn-up (catch fire at specific high velocity) or the
does the medium itself break, melt or burn down?

(Example: a capacitor's dielectric may prematurely rupture only due the
amount of permittivity of it's dielectric, if so what are ALL the
causes: high voltage, high current, high velocity of electron, high
frequency, high kinetic energy, other....?)


(We must be carefull that the effects are not due for other reasons
such as high density, since perhaps most mediums with high permeability
(and permittivity) also have a high density)
Back to top
jambaugh
science forum beginner


Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 35

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
Due to p...

You are confusing the equations with one mechanical model which helped
inspire the equations. The model assumes an absolute space but the
*equations* are independent of such a choice. The mechanical model
fixes a particular inertial frame (absolute space) and describes
electricity and magnetism in terms of distinct types of mechanical
motions of the undelying medium (aether).

But you can pick one of a continuum of distinct isomorphic models
corresponding to the distinct inertial frames (moving aethers vs.
stationary aether relative to a given observer). In the end the
equations themselves are covariant and form-invariant with respect to
Lorentz tranformations and thus this choice of model (aether) is
arbitrary. Since it is the equations which describe empirical
quantities (E and B fields measured by particular observers) while the
model describes a hypothetical substance which is not directly measured
or measurable, the scientific utility of that choice of model is nil
and distinct from the actual theory. The quantities of permittivity
and permability began as qualities of the unobserved substance in the
models. They themselves are in fact relativistically invariant
quantities and thus their (vacuum) measurement does not select out one
of those models. Their derivation from a specific model is immaterial.
Their observation in terms of how much effect one charge's motion has
on other charges' motions is all that matters.

The empirical data confirms the equations and has nothing to say about
the choice of models behind them (when --as in this case-- there is a
choice). We thus in such a case excise the necessity of the model. We
remove any need to refer to a luminerferous aether.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that there is an absolute
frame of reference.
But Maxwell's equations which are Lorentz invariant will not tell you
anything about which is the "true" inertial frame. Indeed they predict
that no electromagnetic phenomenon will ever provide any such
information. The only way such a frame can be determined is if you
find a more accurate set of equations (in terms of empirical
predictions) which are not relativistically invariant. Either you need
a new force or a new theory about the existing forces. Maxwell's
equations and the relativistic equations describing gravitation, weak,
and strong interactions must be supplanted with a more empirically
valid set of non-relativistic equations. Until you find such you are
practicing religion and not science because you are arguing that a
given statement must be taken on faith instead of by empirical
evidence.

Regards,
James Baugh
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:

<all s**t snipped>
This would suggest an
Quote:
absolute relavistic space.

No, it merely suggests that you are not only a cretin but also nuts.
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

Quote:

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD

Who is this troll? Is he new or has he been around for a while? Do we
have him on the list of kooks?
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.

Unfortunately, this is even more incoherent than usual.

Get some sleep and try again, please.

PD
Back to top
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:46 pm    Post subject: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales Reply with quote

Due to permittivity & permeabiltiy being of small values (therefore
light very fast):


Higher velocities in space should INCREASE the permittivity &
permeability factors (let me finish):


People in a mach1 Concord plane would only ***SLIGHTLY*** notice this
(by the ***SLIGHT*** amount they notice they're traveling in curved
space) due to the still very small values of permittivity & permability
of space. Therefore their travel velocity can never be perfectly
straight (curved space, curves faster for them then at a slower
velocity) and can never be perfectly constant, velocity would spiral
down to a stop within a lengthy period of time (the higher the
velocity, the higher the deceleration although the complete stop period
would still be longer than a slower velocity): This would suggest an
absolute relavistic space.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:58 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts SRT , GRT and Minkowski space . socratus Relativity 1 Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm
No new posts Help me plaese with this equation.. Rjames2 Math 0 Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:23 pm
No new posts Differential equation bamford Symbolic 0 Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:44 pm
No new posts Newton discoveing calculus Dan in Philly Math 3 Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:25 am
No new posts I need to know how it this equation was rearranged Alicia Math 3 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:31 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.4637s ][ Queries: 20 (0.4187s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]