Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts]
Author Message
tomgee1
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 750

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

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
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: 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. ) 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...
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

PD wrote:

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
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

guskz@hotmail.com wrote:

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
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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).

> PD
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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.

of calculations is all it is.

THERE ARE LINKS EXPLAINYING the principales a 100 times better then
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. )

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...
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

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
Sue...
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

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

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?

 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....?)

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. )

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...
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

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

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

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)
jambaugh
science forum beginner

Joined: 09 Oct 2005
Posts: 35

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

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
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

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

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.
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

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

 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?
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

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

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
guskz@hotmail.com
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 663

 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:46 pm    Post subject: Maxwell's equation suggests absolute space and defy TWO Newton principales 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.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [15 Posts]
 The time now is Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:43 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics SRT , GRT and “ Minkowski space “. socratus Relativity 1 Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm Help me plaese with this equation.. Rjames2 Math 0 Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:23 pm Differential equation bamford Symbolic 0 Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:44 pm Newton discoveing calculus Dan in Philly Math 3 Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:25 am I need to know how it this equation was rearranged Alicia Math 3 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:31 pm