Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:32:15 GMT
:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:05:12 GMT

Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT.

In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed
of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s).

And it is rotating with the galaxy

Very slowly, though the actual speed might be 10x faster.
The good news about the Earth's revolution is that we know
the period -- it's 1 year. Any variation of lightspeed
relative to that period should show up fairly readily.

You are just reiterating the age old notion that ONE EARTH ROTATION is an
excellent time reference.

It's not a time reference. It's a variance. In short, if there
is a c'=c+v effect, v varies by about 2 * 10^-4 over the course
of about a (sidereal) year, from any external source.

If not...well, then not. But there is a variance in
absolute velocity, assuming the concept of absolute
velocity holds any water at all.


Very good Ghost. I'm sure if you had been around 10000
years ago you would have invented the sundial and maybe
designed stonehenge.

Maybe, but we're here and now, not then and there. :-P


Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'.

For all four constants?

How do you know the readings would be the same?

I don't, but I don't see why they wouldn't be.

I don't either. But the fact that both of us don't see
any obvious reason isn't a proof that there isn't one.

True. There's no data here.



.
Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply?

In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic
space is probably pretty desolate.

Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where
strange things happen to light.

OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the
"Wilsonian threshold density"?

Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3

Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to
be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom
is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into
1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3.

That's within the galaxy.

Yes.

Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29

These are all guesses anyway.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg)
would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at
this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but
still big enough to dominate the Solar System.)

For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ty_010307.html

Just guesses really.

No way to know without a lot of work and exploring. We can make
some guesses by establishing G = 6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2)
and trying to weigh the Earth, then the Sun -- but there's a lot
of unknown stuff out there, not the least of which is "dark matter".

Presumably, that's what's being done here.


If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it
escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe

If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P

Java is terrible to use. The code is pretty easy though.

Would you prefer C#?


And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically
precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license.

I am not trying to make money out of my programs.

You are not. However, website designers are worried about
the Eolas patent, as they should be; many Web pages include
applets, which can be construed as extrenal programs whose
display is embedded within a hypermedia (HTML) page, and
are thereby using the patent.

To their credit, Eolas is on record as stating that they'll
license noncommercial usage of their patent, and there is
a workaround using dynamic Javascript.



http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906

[.sigsnip]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
|
| Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought
the
| ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a
real
| test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been
| possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles.

I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis, I'll
only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship
games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out.

Oh, so your "rules of discussion" mean that you consider bad language,
insults, claiming that curl E = -dB/dt is different from
curl E + dB/dt = 0 in some substantial way? You insist that you can
repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the
discussion proceeding? Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or
whether you really mean "the Androclean way".

The discussion that you ran out on had reached the stage:

(a) You claimed that the permittivity and permeability of free space are
zero.
(b) You agreed that this meant that D and B are both zero in free space.
(c) You claimed that all of the Maxwell equations except (the modified)
Ampere's law are correct.
(d) The above mean that either div E is non-zero or E is zero in free
space.

You refused to answer which you believe is correct. Either should lead to
experimentally detectable effects.

Feel free to continue that discussion. If you believe that you made a
mistake in your starting assumptions, feel free to say so.

I've started the thread "Capacitors in space". This one has a silly
title.

Well, so far that thread doesn't continue the previous discussion at all.
Why not just continue where we were at before?

--
Timo

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, it was written:

Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written:
Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written:

One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate
capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is
the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates.
Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.

That's right.
Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.

Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an
infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago,
extends to tc),

You are assuming that electric fields travel at c wrt the charge that creates
them..

The Maxwellian prediction, so far in agreement with experiment. If you
prefer to assume that the electrostatic potential is instantaneous, then,
well, there is no field-free space.

If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not
"completely empty", then can your claim
"Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space"
have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere?

That's why I have proposed the 'Wilson density threshold' below which the
interaction between photons and matter changes fairly abruptly.

Above the threshold density, matter constitutes a kind of aether, which
determines the equilibrium light speed in that region. The speed of any light
emitted in that region or entering from outside will tend towards that
equilibrium...not necessarilty very rapidly, though.

Essentially the usual extinction argument, but with a threshhold density
below which extinction won't occur.

I believe this has real problems trying to explain Fizeau-Fresnel "ether
drag".

Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of
Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas?

What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the
two plates is?

Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance.

Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.

Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds.
What values do you now get for the two constants?
What do they imply?

Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty
space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as
before.

I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'.
However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is
indeed constant.

This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that
observer.

Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel
at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove
that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you
can't prove it, then your theory is kaput.

Maxwell's equations are totally meaningless unless a speed reference is
provided.
For Maxwell, that reference was a universal medium.

Use a distance object as the speed reference; doesn't need to be anything
local. A coordinate system doesn't need local matter. Of course, making
measurements will need local matter. But the measurements don't need to be
made in the same region of space in which the Maxwell equations are used
to predict the propagation of fields. Still, where is sufficiently empty
space - below your threshold density - available, and experimentally
accessible?

Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the
ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real
test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been
possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles.

What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory?

I am always willing.
I have thought about this a great deal...and repeat what I just stated above.
Speed must have a reference.

Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers.
They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c
determined by an observer who measures the two constants in the source frame.

Not necessarily the source frame. Essentially, the Maxwell equations imply
that EM moves that c wrt to the coordinate system being used, regardless
of the motion of the source. In general, there is no requirement for the
source to be stationary.

So, for ballistic theories to be correct, the Maxwell equations must be
wrong. However, given that AFAICT your theory is essentially identical to
Maxwellian theory in the presence of even minimal amounts of matter makes
experimental tests difficult.

Galilean ether theories basically mean that Maxwell equations +
permittivity and permeability independent of coordinate system must be
wrong.

If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings
to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble.

According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to
keep the measured values constant.

According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories
specifically designed to explain such null results.

I think they all do that.

Any that haven't been falsified by experiment do that. The ones that were
falsified by the experiments in question didn't predict a null result.
Some of the papers from that time make for interesting reading. Trouton's
attempt to measure orientation-dependence of electrical resistance was a
nice try.

--
Timo

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:44:13 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
news
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
m...

George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that
matters.

That is ZERO.

No it isn't Henri, it is the vector speed of
the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters.
You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next!

Your basic physics is sadly lacking George.

If you think one mirror hits the next, it
is your understanding of the apparatus that
is sadly lacking Henri.

George, let me explain.

Good idea, it helps to flush out any misunderstandings.

You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the
movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the
speed of the observer relative to the source.

No. What I call the "lab frame" is an inertial frame
(not rotating) defined such that the central point of
the turntable is at rest. The easy way is to take that
point as the origin.

I have always said that the speed of the light in the
lab frame is the vector sum of the velocity of the
source and a vector describing the emission. The vector
sum points in the direction of the point where the light
must reflect off the first mirror so that it eventually
reaches the detector because only light that hits the
detector affects the output of the detector (you seem to
think that light that misses the detector defines the
output, a view I have never understood). The magnitude
of the resultant can then be determined by trigonometry.

In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed
is at right angles to the first mirror.
Its speed component towards the mirror is zero.

In the rotating frame, the source's speed is zero, period!

Well OK.
I shouldn't have said 'the rotating frame'. Just the mirror frame.

It's easy to make these little slips in the
heat of the argument, I do the same myself.

In the '1st mirror frame' the source's component velocity in the mirror
direction is zero.

You neglected to incorporate the mirror's velocity in your previous
arguments.

I have never worked in the first mirror frame,
only the lab frame or occassionally the rotating
frame.

In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that mirror.
Its
velocity component towards the mirror is zero.

The light is emitted at c from the source but will then
vary along the path as the radius varies between source
and mirror.

Since the source is orbiting the first mirror, we have a transverse
doppler
situation.

We are not worried about Doppler as it cancels out
round the loop. What does matter is the propagation
time. The source has a purely transverse speed in
the mirror frame but the sum of that transverse
speed plus the emission speed of c almost towards
the mirror gives a vector sum which is exactly
towards the mirror but at slightly less than c.

For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two
frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity.

Source speed doesn't enter directly into the picture.

The vector sum brings it in and the detector
responds to differences in arrival time.

For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the
analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed
is c/n regardless of rotation therefore the output
cannot vary with rotation. QED. All others frames
must give the same result.

...and that argument applies to SR as well. So sagnac refutes SR.

The only one that explains sagnac is LET.

Sorry Henri, SR works just fine, denial doesn't
work.

However I prefer my 'light axis' theory.

I'm not surprised. The fact that the use of
polarising fibre eliminates is something you
can just ignore. Not that you have a theory
anyway, no equations, just hand-waving.

Now I can add that Sagnac is just a 'transverse doppler effect'....

Doppler would produce a fixed rate of shift, not
a displacement of the fringes, or in the case of
a photodetector an sine wave output instead of a
DC output which depends on the rate of rotation.

Also, transverse Doppler only ccurs in SR and LET,
there is no such thing in Ritz's theory.

....and you will
find that 'gamma' appears in the maths.

Gamma is second order, the Sagnac effect is first
order.

Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result.

Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about
a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything.
snip to clarify
No "explanations" Henri, show the maths that
gives you the predicted output.

Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version.

Perhaps you lost the plot, the question was what
does Ritz predict for Sagnac. The answer is a null
result.

Ritz has no bearing on Sagnac for the above reasons.

Ritz is a theory of light and therefore makes a
prediction in the case of Sagnac. That prediction
is null but the observation isn't, Ritz is wrong.

In the frame of any component, the previous component moves in a
circle...and
thus contributes no speed component to the beam.

Then a Ritzian prediction must take that into
account, or better still don't choose such a
difficult frame to work in, use the lab frame.

No it isn't. If you insist on using the second
mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather
odd choice but any consistent choice of frame is
as good as any other), then the speed of the light
is the vector sum of c in some direction (to be
determined) and v perpendicular to path. That
isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras.

Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE
NEXT.

If that is to be your approach, you have to analyse
the first leg from source to first mirror in the
frame of the first mirror, then do a transform into
the frame of the second mirror before analysing the
second leg, etc.. You haven't accounted for the
transform effects. At the end of the day, the result
can be no different from either of the two methods
we discussed above - a null result.

there are NO transforms.

The source orbits the first mirror.

For the next leg applying the same view, you work
in the frame of the second mirror. You have to
transform the results of the first leg which you
found in the first mirror frame into the second
before you can do the next stage. That shouldn't
actually worry you, it is Galilean transforms, not
Lorentz transforms we are talking about.

Sagnac is a transverse doppler effect.
I have finally provided you with a plausible answer.

It isn't plausible Henri, Doppler changes frequency
and putting two different frequencies into an
interferometer gives you a moving fringe pattern.
Look into a Sagnac experiment and the pattern is
static.

(The pattern moves during constant rotational
acceleration of the table because of Doppler but
not when rotating at constant speed.)

The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The
bit
that
hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it
is
still.

And you know from personal experience that moving the
beam sideways does not alter the fringes. You said you
had seen this when you used a interferometer. Henri, we
have been over all this before.

All right . None of that matters now. I have found the answer.

Not yet.

Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for
Maxwell's equations but in anything other than
a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index.
That's basic physics Henri, you must know that.

Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the
act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum

Irrelevant Henri, the speed is c in the lab frame
in SR hence SR gives the correct prediction. Whinge
all you like, you cannot change that.

SR just reiterates the aether concept.

Nope. You really should try to find out what SR
says. You were close a few weeks ago but I am
still waiting for your answer to this:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f05646b8cd1bec

About half way done there is this quoted text:

You are not even prepared to consider the possibility that the clocks
are not perfect and might have malfunctioned under the different
conditions

From there on is relevant to SR, the rest is
probably 'water under the bridge' by now.

As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space
is
zero.

Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed
of light would be infinite in ANY medium.

There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'.

There can be a 'speed of light relative to..'

True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value
of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite.

Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and
you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have
pointed out, photon spin is known and is related to
polarisation, and commercial iFOGs use elliptical
cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation
reducing the accuracy so think again.

Ritz died prematurely.

His theory is what it is and still predicts
a null result.

Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date.
I'm trying to do that for him.

Then that will be your "BaT" theory not his. Ritz's
theory predicts a null result.

No, George.
I have now provided you with something to seriously ponder.
The Sagnac effect is based on transverse doppler....

I do agree you have given this more serious
consideration this time, but unfortunately
a Doppler-based result gives the wrong kind
of output. Ritzian theory still gives a null
prediction.

The problem Henri is that Ritzian theory was
published in 1908. There's nothing you can do
to change it and it gives the wrong answer.

That doesn't stop you inventing a new theory
called BaT but it needs to differ somehow from
Ritz to give a different answer and you need to
define what that difference is in your equations
so everyone can test it. My expectation is that
any change you put in to cope with Sagnac will
cause some other prediction to fail.

George

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote:

[incorrect attributions corrected]

[Nieminen wrote:]
| One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a
parallel plate
| capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where
e is
| the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the
plates.
| Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.

[Nieminen wrote:]
| Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an
| infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t
ago,
| extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the
vicinity
| of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the
| microwave background radiation is everywhere!

Ok, Now reduce the area to a point, say one atom at the end of a needle.
Apply some large voltage (say 1,000,000V) between the needle and a plate
(any area).
Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What happens?

Well, the connnection between your question and the quoted text is unclear
to me (other than both involving capacitors), and the connection with our
previous discussion where you claimed that permittivity (e) and
permeability (m) of free space are zero, and that the Maxwell equations
other than (the modified) Ampere's law are correct, is also unclear. What
is your point?

Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you brought them
together in empty space as if you brought them together in air, until the
fields became large enough to get fun stuff like arcing, ion wind etc. All
of these are strong-field effects which basically obscure the more
relevant physics. Insisting on strong fields is basically a distraction
from the fundamentals - all material media are nonlinear (but linear over
a very useful practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very useful
range). The cute stuff that happens - in air or in vacuum - is due to the
nonlinear/nonlocal effects of the material media. (In the case of vacuum,
once you get electrons being ejected, it isn't strictly vacuum anymore, is
it?)

I assume you don't to get into QM-GR nonlinear effects in free space?

In the low field limit, I'd say there is no measurable difference between
the things in vacuum and the things in low-pressure gas. OTOH, your
repeated claim that e=0, m=0 in empty space (as opposed to e=e0 and m=m0
as experimentally measured in low-pressure gases) implied quite different
physics. What do you say will happen, and, in particular, exactly how will
it differ from the predictions of classical electrodynamics? Exactly how
empty must the "empty space" be before this (sudden?) transition from e=e0
to e=0 and m=m0 to m=0 occurs?

The above all assuming that by "point" you don't mean an absolutely
perfect point, with the deviant-from-reality classical predictions of
infinite charge density at the point etc. When you get to atom-sized
needle tips, I expect that quantum effects will become rather important.
Did you really want to get into that, or was the non-zero atomic sized
needle tip just to avoid the usual classical singularities?

--
T.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Timo Nieminen" wrote:
| |
| | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have
thought
| the
| | ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to
a
| real
| | test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't
been
| | possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles.
|
| I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis,
I'll
| only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship
| games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out.
|
| Oh, so your "rules of discussion" mean that you consider bad language,
| insults, claiming that curl E = -dB/dt is different from
| curl E + dB/dt = 0 in some substantial way?

The rules of discussion are those set out by Phuckwit Duck aka Paul
Draper, relativist, and broken by him in *his* pompous know-it-all and
now bitter
attitude.
Here's how it began:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear]
PD
Draper:
Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step at a
time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the
error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion.
Androcles:
I'll agree to your terms.
My terms:
Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error
or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed.
I'd requi the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the
discussion continued until I have convince you or you have
convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time
is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing
to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phuckwit Duck was *plonked* for failing to follow his own rules,
the exchange was never fruitful. Phuckwit Duck remains enchanted
and bitter that his shot from the duck blind blew out his own
tailfeathers.
From: "PD"
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Bielawski agrees with Androcles for a change.
Date: 7 Oct 2005 15:04:16 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 27
Message-ID:

That fumble was truly spectacular. What was amazing was his sticking to
his guns on the arithmetic error. He apparently can't say "oops"
without vomiting uncontrollably.
PD
I did of course address the alleged fumble, but Phuckwit Duck has to
vomit uncontrollably.


So now you know and need not guess what the rules of discussion are.
Please acknowledge them.


| You insist that you can
| repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the
| discussion proceeding?

No.

| Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or
| whether you really mean "the Androclean way".
|
| The discussion that you ran out on had reached the stage:

You are a LIAR, the last thing I said in that discussion was

"Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the Maxwell equations."
(instigitated of course by Timo Nieminen)
Timo Nieminen:
Oh?
Yes, my mistake. Sorry about that."
Under the rule of discussion by Phuckwit Duck:
"We'll go things one little step at a time. When we get to a point of
conflict, we'll identify what the error is on either side, and the party
in error MUST acknowledge the error and remove the erroneous
statement from further discussion", we have reached a point of
conflict.
Please acknowledge that you've lied, I did not run out, you did.
Androcles.

Phuckwit Duck. Isn't that a new childrens' cartoon on the telly?????

George replied to Henri:

As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in
completely empty space is zero.

Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed
of light would be infinite in ANY medium.

There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'.

There can be a 'speed of light relative to..'

True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value
of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite.

Henri and Ralph should collaborate.

I wonder whether Henri would go along with Ralph's
constant of one second, or Ralph would go along with
Henri's constant of something less than 10^-20 kg/m^3.

Of course, Henri loves graphs, while Ralph hates them.
Opposites attract, right?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| [incorrect attributions corrected]
|
| [Nieminen wrote:]
| | One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a
| parallel plate
| | capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d
where
| e is
| | the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between
the
| plates.
| | Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.
|
| [Nieminen wrote:]
| | Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to
an
| | infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time
t
| ago,
| | extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the
| vicinity
| | of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look,
the
| | microwave background radiation is everywhere!
|
| Ok, Now reduce the area to a point, say one atom at the end of a
needle.
| Apply some large voltage (say 1,000,000V) between the needle and a
plate
| (any area).
| Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What
happens?

Ok, I stand corrected. For my excuse, the attributions were not clear.



| Well, the connnection between your question and the quoted text is
unclear
| to me (other than both involving capacitors), and the connection with
our
| previous discussion where you claimed that permittivity (e) and
| permeability (m) of free space are zero, and that the Maxwell
equations
| other than (the modified) Ampere's law are correct, is also unclear.
What
| is your point?

To try to clarify what is unclear.


|
| Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you brought
them
| together in empty space as if you brought them together in air, until
the
| fields became large enough to get fun stuff like arcing, ion wind etc.

You would, huh?
That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate.
Androcles.





All
| of these are strong-field effects which basically obscure the more
| relevant physics. Insisting on strong fields is basically a
distraction
| from the fundamentals - all material media are nonlinear (but linear
over
| a very useful practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very
useful
| range). The cute stuff that happens - in air or in vacuum - is due to
the
| nonlinear/nonlocal effects of the material media. (In the case of
vacuum,
| once you get electrons being ejected, it isn't strictly vacuum
anymore, is
| it?)
|
| I assume you don't to get into QM-GR nonlinear effects in free space?
|
| In the low field limit, I'd say there is no measurable difference
between
| the things in vacuum and the things in low-pressure gas. OTOH, your
| repeated claim that e=0, m=0 in empty space (as opposed to e=e0 and
m=m0
| as experimentally measured in low-pressure gases) implied quite
different
| physics. What do you say will happen, and, in particular, exactly how
will
| it differ from the predictions of classical electrodynamics? Exactly
how
| empty must the "empty space" be before this (sudden?) transition from
e=e0
| to e=0 and m=m0 to m=0 occurs?
|
| The above all assuming that by "point" you don't mean an absolutely
| perfect point, with the deviant-from-reality classical predictions of
| infinite charge density at the point etc. When you get to atom-sized
| needle tips, I expect that quantum effects will become rather
important.
| Did you really want to get into that, or was the non-zero atomic sized
| needle tip just to avoid the usual classical singularities?
|
| --
| T.

Timo Nieminen wrote:

all material media are nonlinear (but linear over a very useful
practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very useful range).

Could you explain what you mean by local/nonlocal? Thanks!

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis