🚀 go-pugleaf

RustyJames wrote:
> On May 18, 10:23 am, zookumar yelubandi <zooku...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> RustyJames wrote:
>>> On May 18, 9:36 am, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>>> Jack Sprat wrote:
>>>>> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics Jack Sprat <jack sp...@invalid.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Do you understand, at every level, how a transistor works? What
>>>>>>> is this "hole" theory then? A form of transmission using
>>>>>>> nothingness? Why would two materials conduct electricity in one
>>>>>>> direction, but not the other, based on how they are joined?
>>>>>>> Sounds pretty magical, no?
>>>>>> Not hardly; all those semiconductor physics classes made perfect
>>>>>> sense and things worked like the theory said in the lab.
>>>>> Where? In trade school? Yes! Just as I thought.
>>>> Jack is mistaking his ignorance and lack of education for others.
>>>> Those of us who have studied physics understand this but Jack is
>>>> enjoying his ignorance while hoping others have the same lack.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> EM radiation in a vacuum always travels at the speed of light,
>>         Here's the crux of the matter.  What exactly is a vacuum?  Is it
>> a real space or a conceptualized one?  If it cannot be realized, then
>> everything moves through some medium/aether/substrate.  All experiments
>> that have ever been conducted, were done so under non-vacuum conditions.
>>
>>         What has previously been thought of as empty space has now been
>> conjectured to contain dark matter.  String theory further suggests that
>> we are all bathed in some matter that is not yet understood by us.  
>>
>>         Thought experiment: when you turn on a light switch, the light
>> "object" putatively goes from zero velocity to C ... what conclusions
>> can be drawn from this?  Is the light object some kind of looped string
>> that is permanently set to C and which remains invisible while in this
>> loop and becomes visible when the loop breaks?  Or is the light object
>> perhaps the excitation of an infinite invisible string (or sigma of an
>> infinite number of infinitesimal strings) which we perceive as visible
>> light moving at C after the excitation reaches terminal velocity in the
>> resisting medium?  Is the resisting medium the same throughout the
>> observable Universe?  Is the speed of light the same throughout the
>> observable Universe?  How many more possibilities exist that may shed
>> some light (pun intended) on the true nature of light, and indeed, the
>> nature of the Universe?  Are we even close to identifying these natures?
>>
>>         Yet textbooks have been written that pretend absolute knowledge,
>> and scientists have been lauded (e.g. Maxwell, Einstein), etc. ... all
>> because their findings had satisfied the criteria of a primitive science
>> age (by today's standards).  
>>
>>> relative to the observer, regardless of the observer's velocity. It is
>>> been said by people smarter than me that Electromagnetic radiation
>>> does not require a material medium and can travel through a vacuum.
>>         A vacuum has never been observed.  Ergo, claims of independency
>> from a putative medium has yet to be demonstrated.  For those of us
>> whose intuitions point towards a medium, the nature of the putative
>> medium remains mysterious.  But we are not claiming otherwise.  To wit,
>> a science left properly untold is truer than a science improperly told.
>>
>>> The theory of electromagnetic radiation was developed by James Clerk
>>> Maxwell and published in 1865. He showed that the speed of propagation
>>> of electromagnetic radiation should be identical with that of light,
>>> about 186,000 mi (300,000 km) per sec. Subsequent experiments by
>>> Heinrich Hertz verified Maxwell's prediction through the discovery of
>>> radio waves, also known as hertzian waves.
>>         All Maxwell et al have demonstrated is that visible light is
>> part of the EM spectrum.   As such, the wave equations apply.  Nothing
>> more can be garnered about the nature of light, at least, to this point.
>> Perhaps string theory will open up a few channels in the
>> knowledgestream.
>>
>>> now back to your either
>>> statement, either is a medium it has resistant properties and
>>> dielectric properties as well one day I will show that directing a
>>> concentrated electromagnetic beam focused in a straight line down the
>>> waste beam of a intensely focused beam of light will oscillate an
>>> electric field generating an oscillating magnetic field, the magnetic
>>> field in turn generates an oscillating electric field, and so on.
>>> These oscillating fields together form an electromagnetic wave that
>>> will pull the dielectric sub straight out of the aether along the path
>>> of the light beam allowing a secondary path for EMR or light waves to
>>> propagate faster than C within the waste beam with the lower dialectic
>>> or resistance value of 330 ohms, even reducing this resistance
>>> slightly will increase the velocity of both EMR and light's
>>> propagation within the waste beam path.
>>         Best of luck.
>>
>>         -zookumar-
>> ps:     "www.infowars.com"- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> what im saying is that the aether limits the speed of light to it's
> known velocity 

For lack of any better approach, I'll break this as the first sentence
here.

Assumption of a universal aether is a really bad jumping off point.

> lower the resistance in a vacuum and light will travel
> faster 

2nd sentence break here. How can you possibly know the actual
speed of light when all you ever can have is the observed speed?
For all you know it goes from your first point of observation,
at infinite speed, to some far off place, and returns to be at
at the exact point at the exact moment you anticipate it should
be there, so think your thesis is proved. Is it?

No. Only your prediction has been proved. You only surmise what
has actually happened in between your two points of measurement.

I'm not suggesting that what I wrote above actually happens. I
am only challenging anyone's right to assume that because a
prediction of where light is supposed to be in the next
measurable timeframe that the events transpiring between
are understood with any degree of provable accuracy. But
then comes the "reasonableness" argument.

Science always has contained many religious faith elements,
and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Many primitives created monuments that correctly identified
an equinox that was critical to determining their planting
time. They didn't understand what drove the seasons, only
that by using what they had observed they could become more
successful in their endeavors by using poorly understood but
successful predictors to their benefit.

Nature is established. How much of it do we need to understand
to be successful humans living in the universe we find ourselves
in?

but

Let this dangle and disappear.

 > many things I have said in the past have come to be known
> as common knowledge today.

I won't get into arguing further details of this posting of yours
other than to say that you haven't addressed Zookumar's questions
while presuming that you meant to.