|
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
... In the meanwhile, you could disprove that cause and effect by proving that "TEM fields (waves) can propagate outside of the universe in the complete absence of a space structure. Excellent choice of words ... Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 15, 11:04*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The structure may or may not exist. Think about it. If you were somewhere where the structure of space didn't exist, you would be outside of the boundaries of our universe. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com This is not relevant to the orginal discussion. The discussion was about what you said was the structure of space and which I said may or may not be the structure of space. You changed the topic to address the question of one's existence inside or outside of said structure. This of course is a bizzare notion since the existence of a locus in which someone or some thing can exist outside the bounds of our Universe has not been proven or even proposed in non-fiction science. |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 16, 12:28*am, John Smith wrote:
wrote: * ... do. Certainly we are a long way from saying that this is an ether or medium that supports the transmission of TEM waves. So, let's call it "whipped bananas" and let it go at that ... traditionally, it has been called the ether or aether ... I just tend to follow the tradition of the men who first defined it ... Regards, JS Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot they propagate through nothingness? Not all volumes of space are necessarily occupied by any form of matter. |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I want to share with you one problem that I have on the above subject When placing a yagi in free space the computor programs supply a gain figure where according to my thinking the root cause for ejection is the intersection of two magnetic field.How this happens with a yagi is a matter of conjecture. Any pointers? Performing the same with an arrangement in equilibhrium there is no gravity and yet gain is shown. This leads to four posabilities 4 The concept of initial reliance on equilibrium as preached by the masters is incorrect and my reasoning is in error HOORAY! He finally got the right answer!!! |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 16, 5:15*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot they propagate through nothingness? Because the only thing that can propagate through nothingness is nothing. That should be clear to the most casual observer. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com That would be true if the casual observer did not consider truly empty space to be nothingness. I do. I do not believe that truly empty space is "something" because to believe otherwise would be to assume that nothingness only exists outside of our Universe... nothingness would not "be" but we define it, so it "is". We know that TEMs can propagate through truly empty space because TEM waves propagate through space, some of which must be "empty" space and some of which is "occupied". I agree that some locii of space, but not all, are characterized by a wide variety of quantum particles, perhaps only some of which actually occupy the space associated with them. Bottom line is that such particles are not required for TEM waves to propagate and they are not the aether. |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 16, 5:14*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: This is not relevant to the orginal discussion. On the contrary, this is the crux of the original discussion - whether a wave can exist outside the structure of the universe, whatever that may be. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com The crux of the question concerned the physical makeup of the structure of the universe. Then you addressed the issues regarding entities which can or cannot exist inside ot outside the structure. The discussion on the makeup of the structure was never closed. You put the cart in front of the horse. |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: This is not relevant to the orginal discussion. On the contrary, this is the crux of the original discussion - whether a wave can exist outside the structure of the universe, whatever that may be. Cecil: That was what I got out of it ... but then, I focused on Arts' observation, "One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux ... " And, obviously, IMHO, he is referring to a space truly "composed of nothing" and absent of anything even resembling an ether. And, I did accept that as the crux of his ponder-ings/point(s.) However, also buried in his text are obvious references to a space such as the one our universe resides in ... So, once again, one of those arguments/debates which could go on forever ... and I got those prior appointments ... ;-) Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot they propagate through nothingness? Because the only thing that can propagate through nothingness is nothing. That should be clear to the most casual observer. Well, yeah, makes sense to me ... but then, apparently not others ... not 100% sure, but yeah, that is where I am at, at the present time. First that "sea" must fill the void to give us a "media" (ocean) to sail .... and most certainly a must for RF/light to propagate through! Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
John Smith wrote:
And, obviously, IMHO, he is referring to a space truly "composed of nothing" and absent of anything even resembling an ether. And, I did accept that as the crux of his ponder-ings/point(s.) Maybe "absence of anything even resembling a structure" would be a better way to put it. It's pretty clear that if there is no structure for space, then space cannot exist. Absolute nothing would necessarily be the absence of any and every *thing* including space. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
That was what I got out of it ... but then, I focused on Arts'
observation, "One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux ... " Static particles? Does he mean statically charged particles? They don't radiate, they are attracted to opposite charged matter. But then there is ionization of a substance. |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 12:28 am, John Smith wrote: wrote: ... do. Certainly we are a long way from saying that this is an ether or medium that supports the transmission of TEM waves. So, let's call it "whipped bananas" and let it go at that ... traditionally, it has been called the ether or aether ... I just tend to follow the tradition of the men who first defined it ... Regards, JS Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot they propagate through nothingness? Not all volumes of space are necessarily occupied by any form of matter. What would the velocity factor of whipped bananas be? |
Equilibrium in free space
Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot
they propagate through nothingness? Because the only thing that can propagate through nothingness is nothing. That should be clear to the most casual observer. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass jar it then contains space? That's like saying the absence of light is darkness. True as a conceptual description of nothingness. If you choose to rename nothingness, does that mean it aint nothin? You guys have too much time on your hands. |
Equilibrium in free space
That would be true if the casual observer did not consider truly empty
space to be nothingness. I do. That's obviously a logical contradiction. Space is something. If space is there, then something is there. If nothing is there, then space cannot possibly be there. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com So if nothing is there, it aint nothing after all? |
Equilibrium in free space
Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot
they propagate through nothingness? Because the only thing that can propagate through nothingness is nothing. That should be clear to the most casual observer. Well, yeah, makes sense to me ... but then, apparently not others ... not 100% sure, but yeah, that is where I am at, at the present time. First that "sea" must fill the void to give us a "media" (ocean) to sail ... and most certainly a must for RF/light to propagate through! Regards, JS But if nothingness is something (because it has a name) then you can propagate through it because even nothingness is something so that can be our "media". In fact it must be the perfect medium because it has a velocity factor of 1. |
Equilibrium in free space
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith wrote: But the new pictures of light-waves do suggest they travel a medium which exists, ... One of my books on the subject calls it the "quantum soup". And, again, very much in few words ... And, what a strange "soup", indeed ... Even a simple observer can change what "soup" finally emerges from the quantum-soup-can! Be it, chicken? Beef? Vegetable? chuckle Regards, JS Since we need leaps of faith to bridge the gaps in our theories, lets make it frog's leg soup. |
Equilibrium in free space
"Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I want to share with you one problem that I have on the above subject When placing a yagi in free space the computor programs supply a gain figure where according to my thinking the root cause for ejection is the intersection of two magnetic field.How this happens with a yagi is a matter of conjecture. Any pointers? Performing the same with an arrangement in equilibhrium there is no gravity and yet gain is shown. This leads to four posabilities 4 The concept of initial reliance on equilibrium as preached by the masters is incorrect and my reasoning is in error HOORAY! He finally got the right answer!!! Sounds like a Scientology test to me |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot they propagate through nothingness? Nothingness that contains something is not nothing, i.e. is an obvious logical contradiction. Every cubic meter of the universe contains energy. Therefore, nothingness cannot exist. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass jar it then contains space? Casimir effect experiments have been run in a vacuum and proved there is lots of "stuff" still there even in empty space. There is no such thing as nothingness, at least not within the space of our universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
So if nothing is there, it aint nothing after all? There is no "there" within the space of our universe where nothing is there. Casimir effect experiments have been run on spaces where nothing is supposed to be. But instead of nothing, they found the quantum soup which is the space occupied by our universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Maybe "absence of anything even resembling a structure" would be a better way to put it. It's pretty clear that if there is no structure for space, then space cannot exist. Absolute nothing would necessarily be the absence of any and every *thing* including space. Well, yeah, that would pretty much be my call. Its' just a bit to "swallow." And, add to that the fact, we have never seen "nothing", but then probably never will ... LOL I have been attempting to locate my exact old school physics text(s), have had no luck. But, if I remember correctly, my books only mentioned Einsteins first claim, that the structure/ether of space does not exist. Indeed, if I am remembering correctly, they lumped structure/ether together with alchemists, charlatans, magic, witches, etc. ... Somewhere, later in college, I am suspecting, Einstein, this time reneging on that claim, was quoted again, this time allowing for the structure/ether: Ether and the Theory of Relativity Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden. " ... More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity. .... " His implication in the words, " ... we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic ... ", implies the ether will, almost, be as difficult to "view" as "nothing." 8-) LET ME POINT OUT, Einstein was NOT too intimidated to use that ugly word, "ether." ;-) This is supposed to be the exact text, translated, from his presentation. If someone knows of another which differs, please let me know ... Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
... Static particles? Does he mean statically charged particles? They don't radiate, they are attracted to opposite charged matter. But then there is ionization of a substance. I don't know why that should be so difficult to ponder ... in the post to Cecil, above, note that Einstein takes "all" mechanical structure from the ether (but, I think Cecil is still correct--some "other" type of structure IS there.) However, with "entangled particles", no "real" movement is necessary, one particle "imparts" its' behavior to another, that one to another and on and on ... why they preform this "dance" in our perceived form of a wave, or sine-wave even--I cannot fathom nor suggest a reason for ... but then, maybe something else is really happening ... their are theories which deal with this all ... the "particle dance" is/are just my thoughts on what "seems" to be occurring and "envisioned" from others works ... what space "really" is composed of ???, Art seems to suggest looking at the CERN project, I don't think we have a choice--if we wish to proceed in this quest ... Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
... But if nothingness is something (because it has a name) then you can propagate through it because even nothingness is something so that can be our "media". In fact it must be the perfect medium because it has a velocity factor of 1. JB: Please, just consider these few words, "You can't 'see' nothing! You can't go 'through nothing' (or, go to nothing)." I know, it is too simple, one wonders how he missed the concept--nothing is just what it means--nothing! You are "seeing something" when you look at space (and, I know, it IS hard to swallow--"time" brings ones' thinking into line on this, or, it worked for me ... ) Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
... So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass jar it then contains space? That's like saying the absence of light is darkness. True as a conceptual description of nothingness. If you choose to rename nothingness, does that mean it aint nothin? You guys have too much time on your hands. Yes, exactly. As hard to believe as it is, once you evacuate that jar, the structure of Cecils' and my ether still "drifts" in and out of that jar like it does not even exist! (the jar that is) And don't complain to me about that being "impossible", I already said that and claimed that--long ago ... ROFLOL Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
... Since we need leaps of faith to bridge the gaps in our theories, lets make it frog's leg soup. You remind me of myself when first grappling with these concepts. I am going to love it when you have your first revelation, your first epiphany ... HEHEHEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Regards, JS :-) |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 17, 9:58*am, "JB" wrote:
That was what I got out of it ... but then, I focused on Arts' observation, "One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux ... " Static particles? * Does he mean statically charged particles? *They don't radiate, they are attracted to opposite charged matter. *But then there is ionization of a substance. JB If I called those particles Neutrinos all hell would break out again as in the past I am refering to the Gaussian law of statics without comment of how I could see things differently from Gauss. Some would like to state them with reference to charge some another way. The medium that I take is static particles very simple and understood by all but then an opening for an auguement about a correction required. Go figure Art |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 17, 7:34*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: And, obviously, IMHO, he is referring to a space truly "composed of nothing" and absent of anything even resembling an ether. *And, I did accept that as the crux of his ponder-ings/point(s.) Maybe "absence of anything even resembling a structure" would be a better way to put it. It's pretty clear that if there is no structure for space, then space cannot exist. Absolute nothing would necessarily be the absence of any and every *thing* including space. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil Why not say what one call nothing is a reaction to the pressure of gravity to zero but only on the earths surface Vacuum is a datum pressure on earth only whereas there are different datums thruout the universe. If one could determin the datum of the many datums there still is no reason that pressure positive or negative has an overpowing force on every posible content. A case in point is a particle that is projected within the Earths boundary that exceeds the force of gravity but still exists in terms of matter un affected by negative gravitational forces. When the datum for perfect nothingness is determined in terms of the four forces only then can we equate nothing with energy contained by particles with no affinity to gravity. All nonsence probably since no problem can be solved with missing entities such as particles of resistive particles that have yet to be detected or what can affect them. A vacuum is just a measure of pressure nothing more and nothing less with the assumption that all has mass and zero resistance to datum pressure of our Earth. Lookng at things in a totally different manner if there was a volume of nothing in our Universe would it not implode to zero dimension with the understanding that external forces are in existance to every point in the Universe I supply this post purely to be part of the discussion that this thread now represents without ever being present to conditions of outer space and thus unable to respond in detail to those who have intimate knoweledge of such via their interrestial travels where they had the opportunity to touch to lift and touch with the toungue to determine the characteristics of all. If I knew some shakesphere I would enter the first act in detail and then compare that act with something that would then be comparible to the three stuges which has nothing to do with this thread if you get my gist. No names mentioned ofcours but keep a watch to the rear! I have arrived in Rome Best Regards Art |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which provide the very structure of space itself. One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to stipulate the conditions for its existence. Ample amounts of foolishness and arrogance would be required to make such a presumption. On the other hand reasonable men speculate about what it might be. The only thing we can be sure of is what it is _not_. 73, ac6xg |
Equilibrium in free space
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... JB wrote: So if nothing is there, it aint nothing after all? There is no "there" within the space of our universe where nothing is there. Casimir effect experiments have been run on spaces where nothing is supposed to be. But instead of nothing, they found the quantum soup which is the space occupied by our universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Don't blame me, I never spilled any quantum soup in your space. |
Equilibrium in free space
Jim Kelley wrote:
One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to stipulate the conditions for its existence. We know space exists and according to quantum physics, nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics is correct, then space must be constructed of particles albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly unmeasurable particles. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1501.html http://www.world-science.net/otherne...1014_empty.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ic/vacuum.html http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...of-everything/ -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... JB wrote: So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass jar it then contains space? Casimir effect experiments have been run in a vacuum and proved there is lots of "stuff" still there even in empty space. There is no such thing as nothingness, at least not within the space of our universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Ok now yer giving me a headache by explaining an observation on theories based upon theories base upon theories. In the Casimir experiments, there are plates or shapes deliberately placed in the vacuum. Quantum theory goes too far into the theoretical for my taste. It is a curious mental and mathematical exercise but it reminds me of Leibnitz' Monad theory of existence. It doesn't help me with antenna performance. Go there without me. |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
Ok now yer giving me a headache by explaining an observation on theories based upon theories base upon theories. Welcome to Flatland. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 17, 7:31*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The discussion on the makeup of the structure was never closed. You put the cart in front of the horse. The makeup of the structure is irrelevant to this discussion. Since there is a structure (which is something) it cannot possibly be nothing. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com True under some abstract (non-physical) conditions. For example, the "structure" could be a mere figment of your imagination which is something, an abstraction, a figment. However, it is not something which measureable TEM waves could use as an aether for propagation. The answer lies in the fact that, if TEM waves are present, then something (the TEM WAVE itself) is present where nothing existed before. TEM waves need only by their very presence propagagate through nothing. This does not suggest I am stating that they travel outside the boundaries of the Universe which you believe is the only locus where nothing exists, and to which I disagree since empty space is also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that without structure. |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
... I disagree since empty space is also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that without structure. You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century. "Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and therefore not "nothing". -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: One would first have to presume to know what space is in order to stipulate the conditions for its existence. We know space exists and according to quantum physics, nothing except particles exist. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that, if quantum physics is correct, then space must be constructed of particles albeit possibly as yet undiscovered and possibly unmeasurable particles. And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'. It must be just marvelous to be you. :-) ac6xg |
Equilibrium in free space
Jim Kelley wrote:
And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'. Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is, just that I know it's not empty which has been proved. Space is something, as opposed to nothing. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com