How does the Light Move?

most worthy evocation of dipole moments, dood, but
see the excellent paper, referred-to by Surfer, above in #17.

anyway, there is no such a thing as a vacuum, although
its experimental discoverer believed that it was.

The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
fields in vacuum.

thus:
I have never learned what i.e. & e.g. abbreviate, but if
they mean "that is" and "for example," then
the usual usages seem somewhat contrary to normal English grammar,
unless one uses a comma e.g.; I know, though,
that such punctution is somewhat superfluous,
considering the abbreviation's effect in reading it (note that
such ellisions are very common in British English,
what I'd call "run-on sentences" & so forth, apparently because
of the duality with French court usages .-)

--l'Oeuvre!
www.wlym.com

On Dec 22, 5:27*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Arindam Banerjee says...

The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
required phase differences.

Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material.. In
response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
external field.

The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
fields in vacuum.

It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. *It is most
unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
principles.

I don't think so.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Can you explain the paradox of twins?

On Dec 22, 11:45*pm, Newberry wrote:
On Dec 22, 5:27*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:



Arindam Banerjee says...

The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
required phase differences.

Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In
response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
external field.

The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
fields in vacuum.

It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. *It is most
unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
principles.

I don't think so.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Can you explain the paradox of twins?

What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to
highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is
this what you mean?

really; must be an artifact of SF, that SR is said to have a twin
"paradox;"
the twin on the space station or Moon lives at a _____ rate -- i
forgot!

see, below, for Arindam's Cable ... which is not Sir Arthur's God-
am geosynchronous elevator!

thus quoth:
The numerous light speed anisotropy experiments have also revealed
turbulence in the velocity of the 3-space relative to the earth. This
turbulence amounts to the detection of sub-mHz gravitational waves -
which are present in the Michelson and Morley 1887 data, as discussed
in [21], and also present in the Miller data [8, 22] also using a gas-
mode Michelson interferometer, and by Torr and Kolen [12], DeWitte
[13] and Cahill [14] measuring RF speeds in coaxial cables, and by
Cahill [15] and Cahill and Stokes [17] using an optical-fiber
interferometer. The existing doppler shift data also offers a resource
to characterise this new form of gravitational waves.

thus quoth:
In the process, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke will pass into
quieted retirement, while the salvageable remains of the ruined
Federal Reserve System, are transferred to national-banking functions
which are based on the precedents of the first and second National
Bank of the United States.
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3650natl_banking.html

--l'OEuvre -- FCUK Copenhagen!
www.wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...istic_Moon.pdf

On Dec 23, 7:06*am, PD wrote:
On Dec 22, 11:45*pm, Newberry wrote:





On Dec 22, 5:27*am, (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:

Arindam Banerjee says...

The speed of light in a dielectric medium is c/(square root of the
refractive index). I worked in the microwave area for over 8 years,
desigining strip line circuits, and it was an experimental fact that light
would travel slowly - the line lengths were thus adjusted to give the
required phase differences.

Yes, that is true. The current understanding of dielectrics at the microscopic
level is this: An external electromagnetic field is applied to a material. In
response to this external field, charges and dipoles in the material move and
change orientation. This in turn produces its own response field, which adds to
the original external field. In the case of magnetic fields, the net result is
to increase the field, as magnetic dipoles tend to line up with external
magnetic fields. In the case of electric fields, the net result is to decrease
the field, because charges and electric dipoles move around to cancel the
external field.

The propagation of electromagnetic fields in matter thus includes both the
vacuum propagation of the fields and also the (approximately linear) response of
the matter. These combined effects propagate slower than pure electromagnetic
fields in vacuum.

It was the Michelson Morley Interferomtry experiment that gave the wrong
impression (based upon a huge bungle) about all the e=mcc stuff. *It is most
unworthy for any man of honour to believe that crap, especially when I have
found out the correct equation linking mass and energy from first
principles.

I don't think so.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Can you explain the paradox of twins?

What paradox? There is a teaching puzzle, designed specifically to
highlight where students have oversimplified what relativity says. Is
this what you mean?- Hide quoted text -

Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate
the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of
acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A,
and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction
of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/
acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. The
clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is
ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and
land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two
clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.

On 12/23/09 9:12 PM, Newberry wrote:


Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate
the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of
acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A,
and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction
of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/
acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. The
clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is
ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and
land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two
clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.

No, your problem is you are assuming the accelerations
are insignificant.

Physics FAQ: The Twin Paradox
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html

On Dec 23, 8:54*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/23/09 9:12 PM, Newberry wrote:



Let there be a clock A on Earth and a clock B on a rocket. Accelerate
the rocket to 0.5c. Let it fly much longer than the time of
acceleration. The clock B is ticking more slowly with respect to A,
and A is ticking more slowly with respect B. Now reverse the direction
of the rocket and fly it back to Earth. The time of deceleration/
acceleration is insignificant compared to the time of flight. The
clock B is still ticking more slowly with respect to A, and A is
ticking more slowly with respect to B. Now decelerate the rocket and
land it on Earth. Time of deceleration insignificant. Compare the two
clocks. Clock B is behind clock A, and clock A is behind clock B.

No, your problem is you are assuming the accelerations
are insignificant.

Physics FAQ: The Twin Paradox



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...adox/twin_...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
there is no pull there should be no red shift.

On 12/24/09 12:01 AM, Newberry wrote:

If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
there is no pull there should be no red shift.

GPS Satellites are in free fall.


See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html

it is acceleration that slows clocks "with respect to some intertial
frame,
'taken' to be at rest," and this includes deceleration, and
the acceleration of "free falling" at ninety degrees (precessional).

thus:
you mean, the Pink Floyd side of Moon,
that Al Gore believes in?

But it's so tenuous, it's also why Einstein discovered Maxwell's
Equations,
and Euclid's little book [similarity proof of 2d pythagorean theorem].
And real engineers discovered the Dark Side of The Moon, Laser

John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of
physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely
an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward
fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to
capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know
what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no
sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein,
Minkowski and many more, physics...


thus quoth:
In the process, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke will pass into
quieted retirement, while the salvageable remains of the ruined
Federal Reserve System, are transferred to national-banking functions
which are based on the precedents of the first and second National
Bank of the United States.
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3650natl_banking.html

--l'OEuvre -- FCUK Copenhagen!
www.wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...istic_Moon.pdf

On Dec 23, 10:10*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/24/09 12:01 AM, Newberry wrote:

If you are in a free fall does your clock still go more slowly? Since
there is no pull there should be no red shift.

* *GPS Satellites are in free fall.

This is a good example actually. The satellite clock will be delayed
by about 7 ìs/day because it moves at v = 4 km/s. [Is this the orbital
speed or speed wrt the GPS receiver?] Does the satellite also see my
clock slipping 7 ìs/day?

See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
*http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -