🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 5, 3:47 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 03:33:28 -0700 (PDT), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 27, 12:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> ><< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
> >can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
> >which involve measuring the force of attraction between
> >two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
> >wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
> >must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
> >inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
> >same in all inertial frames. >>
>
> Q1) Is there an experiment that shows that differently moving observers at the
> same point get the same value for e and mu?

Yes. This is commonly done by observing an electric current from two
different reference frames.
Since the electric and magnetic fields are related to the current by
relations involving permittivity and permeability, it is sufficient to
show that the same relations still work relating the new current to
the new fields in the other frame.

>
> Q2) How do you know that the fields involved in above experiments do not
> actually create the quantities that are being measured.

Then this would significantly alter Maxwell's equations, and the
solutions would be dramatically different, and they would no longer
produce predictions that match experiment.
For example, if you take Gauss' law (one of the relations) and change
E = E(epsilon_0, r, q) to E = E(epsilon_0(E, B), r, q), so that
epsilon_0 is now a function of the fields E and B, then solving that
equation produces different solutions. The fact that the solutions
taking epsilon_0 to be field-independent work so well gives you solid
confidence that epsilon_0 is in fact field-independent.

This is a simple exercise that a third-year student will typically do.

>
> I say that TRULY EMPTY space has zero e or mu.

Well, what most people think of empty space is space devoid of matter.
Now you may have the notion that space devoid of matter still has
stuff in it, and it's only because no one has ever been able to remove
the stuff that they've been able to see that those quantities are
zero.

What you need to propose is how to make that stuff be removed, so that
your wild-ass conjecture might conceivably be measured.

Otherwise, it's like proposing that those are the properties of
peskily persistent angels who refuse to budge.

>
> The quantity known as 'c' is a universal constant that appears in many physical
> equations. It is also the speed of light relative to its source.

And receiver. That's the remarkable thing. And -- yes -- it is VERY
possible to see how that can be.

>
> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
> >[...]
>
> >> moment of emission).
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> I have refuted all the supposed refutations of BaTh.

Nah. You've made noise. Noise is not a refutation.

>
> >Sue...
>
> >> Pentcho Valev
> >> pva...@yahoo.com
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.