🚀 go-pugleaf

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"