On 2 Jul, 03:04, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:40:52 GMT, "Bill Miller"
>
>
>
>
>
> <billmillerkt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >"John C. Polasek" <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:4g0l64p0qplifdsjh9eusjvbgja1kdgtvq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:28:17 GMT, "Bill Miller"
> >> <billmillerkt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>"John C. Polasek" <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:olsi64dpq3djae7k2p3qk1nb92ja7da625@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ruthless snip
>
> >>>>>Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to
say
> >>>>>something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear
relation****=
p
> >>>>>between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes
> >>>>>erroneously
> >>>>>interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a
> >>>>>careful
> >>>>>analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by
charg=
es
> >>>>>and
> >>>>>the movement of charges.""
>
> >>>>>Not too hard.
> >>>> You are full of beans.
>
> >>>Yep... Had some last night.
>
> >>>As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
> >>>> the antenna, a good ****tion of the energy exits as EM waves that
tak=
e
> >>>> off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
> >>>> charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by
polarization
> >>>> of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies
as
> >>>> they go along.
>
> >>>Your case would be stronger if E and H (in an EM wave) were out of
pha=
se.
> >>>Then we would have a situation analagous to -- say -- a spring or
wate=
r
> >>>waves, wherein kinetic energy gets swapped for potential energy, etc.
>
> >>>BUT E and H are in phase! How in the world can anyone imagine that
two=
in
> >>>phase and contiguaous signals are *swapping* energy? If you can do
so,=
I
> >>>believe we would all love to hear how it works.
>
> >> OK, here's how they swap energy, (and remember, you promised to love
> >> to hear this).
> >> Using spring mass for simplicity
>
> >I just dropped everything, rushed outside and looked at my antennas. No
> >matter how hard I looked, I couldn't find a spring.
>
> >>and recognizing that the wave will be
> >> sinusoidal, the force on the spring is pro****tional to displacement
> >> Fk =3D F0 sin wt =A0(say)
> >> The force on the mass is pro****tional to acceleration, two
derivatives
> >> removed, so it's 180 degrees out of phase.
> >> Fm =3D - w^2F0 sin wt
> >> The energies likewise peak 180 degrees apart.
>
> >I'm sorry, John. I still don' see no spring!
>
> You have not looked at my model of the ether (pairspace) on my
> website. The springs are right in front of your nose; capacitive
> energy is stored in the extension of the springs: =A0dx =3D E*e/K.
> It is the only arrangement that will duplicate the action of eps0.
> The spring/mass resonance for the bound charges in space is
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 w =3D sqrt(K/m) =3D 1.693e22 rad/sec.
> The frequency response of any radiation frequency f or w, fits on a
> Bode diagram, showing the mass has very little effect till we approach
> resonance:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Kx =3D mW^2x
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Fm/Fk =3D w^2/W^2
>
> >And while Saint Albert (and the bomb) taught us that Energy and Mass
hav=
e
> >equivalency, I do not see where mass enters into this situation.
>
> >Are you perhaps suggesting that the free space epsilon exhibits the
same
> >type of spring-like latency that we see in the epsilon of many solid
> >dielectrics? If so, then, yes, we see a phase ****ft.
>
> Of course I am. See the website. It all works.
>
>
>
>
>
> >But I am not aware of any such phase ****ft that has bee measured in
free
> >space. If this is your suggestion, then show us the free space
experimen=
tal
> >evidence, please.
>
> >> So you were approximately correct, that they are in phase, yes, in a
> >> larger sense. After all, what's a minus sign? Well, shucks, let's
just
> >> admit that they are out of phase, as you were opining, making my case
> >> stronger as you point out. I'm gratified.
>
> >>>THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call!
>
> >>>> Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential
=
is
> >>>> just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to
expla=
in
> >>>> the dark matter problem.
>
> >>>Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards,
=
the
> >>>separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated.
>
> >>>> By the way which do you prefer:
> >>>> D =3D E =A0and B =3D H
> >>>> or D =3D eps0E and B =3D mu0H =A0?
>
> >>>I pick....
>
> >>>Let's see...
>
> Clearly it would be fruitless for me to go through a whole lot of
> handsprings for someone who still thinks the vacuum is empty and D=3DE
> and B=3DH, equations that are easy to memorize, but which, even with a
> little more substance added, barely approach tautology.
> Maxwell's Ddot lives!
>
> >>>Oh gosh, I just can't decide!
>
> >> You dodged the D=3DE bullet. That's a sure sign of a benighted cgs'er
> >> who at least has the decency to feel a little guilty.
>
> >OK You caught me! I choose...
>
> >British Thermal Units and Furlongs Per Fortnight
>
> >Bill
>
> >>>>>Bill
>
> John Polasekhttp://www.dualspace.net-
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This mechanical model of yours describes how EM waves propagate
through the vacuum, so does that mean EM waves will propagate at
different speeds relative to a laboratory moving at varying speeds
relative to this "ether"?
|
