🚀 go-pugleaf

To quote Mr. Abian:

     "Why light propagates ?  Because  Space  acting according to (A3)
   tends to dilute the intensity of light (concentrated at one point)
   (just the same way that water  acts according to (A3) and dilutes the
  ink drop to feel more  secure, just the same way that General Petain
   acted according to (A3)in diluting the enemy forces) TO FEEL SECURE.
      So this is how FUNDAMENTAL (A3) enters in the VERY ACT OF PROPAGA-
  TION OF LIGHT.  Now, after that it is only a logical observation and
   deduction that the DILUTING PROCESS ( as I explained in my posting)
   manifests itself by diminishing  the intensity of light propa-
   tional to  r^(-2) , since the area of a sphere  is  4pi r^2."


  I would like to ask how the above principle allows for the existence
of laser beams?  Surely Space would cause the light comprising the beam
to be 'diluted' and the coherent structure of the beam would be lost
almost immediately?  Light from all sources would be forced,
asymptotically, into the spherical mode of dilution.

  Now what about light moving in straight lines?  Why should a portion
of Space which is currently "light free" allow an intruding bit of light
free passage through it?  Surely Space should react violently against
the inturder and force it to change its straight path.  We would then
expect light to follow a random walk sort of path, or at best a circular
path, instead of a straight line.  

  And about the analogy Mr. Abian draws between the point source and
sphere derivation of the kM/r^2 law for gravitation,  besides pointing
out that this is a reletively ancient proof which he is revelling in, it
does not necessarily apply to his World picture.  Mr. Abian's line of
reasoning states that things happen because all 'particles' and things 
are animate to the extent that they crave a feeling of 'security' and
act to increase this feeling.  This would imply that the actions they
take are directed.  Directed actions would tend to act directly along
the line connecting the interacting objects, in direct response to the
provocation.  This does not lead one to an inverse square relationship
in any straightforward manner.  In fact, I cannot think of any elegant
reason, based on Mr. Abian's postulates, why the response to the 
provocation should not be focussed and specific rather than spherically
symmetric.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill,               | ounce (ouns), n. - The standard unit of
HNSX Supercomputers   Inc.|   prevention, equal to one pound of cure.
ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.ca    |