Re: Expelled: If you don't believe in holy physics dogma ; you're

On Jul 1, 7:09=A0am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 29, 8:55=A0pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jun 27, 9:21=A0am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >> ...
> snip
>
> >> John Polasek
>
> >Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
> >Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
> >is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
> >electrons. =A0This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
> >consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.
>
> I am not trying to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
> Current on the fly. I have analyzed for a mechanism to explain
> vacuum's permittivity =A0which you can see in excruciating detail as the
> permittivity paper athttp://www.dualspace.net.
> The pairspace described has coefficients that define permittivity as
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 eps0 =3D e^2/Lmc^2 =3D 8.8e-12 (sec^4*Amp^2/kg*m^3)
which
> translates to Coulomb/volt*meter =3D farad/m (mathcad translates this)
> where L is the cell size =3D Compton WL x alpha=3D 3.54e-14m
> or as
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 eps0 =3D rho*e/K
> where K =3D 2.6e14N/m =A0 and rho =3D e/L^3
> The compliance of permittivityis pro****tional to electron charge,
> electron density and inverse to its spring coefficient K.
> This pairspace is a dual space to our empty universe. It's where
> gravity resides also.
> John Polasek

OK, John. Good luck.  I find understanding our one universe enough of
a challenge, without doubling the problem.