🚀 go-pugleaf

zookumar yelubandi 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.

Well, you should read a physics textbook to see what this means. It is
well understood by scientists.
> 
>         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?  

The conclusion is that you have no idea of what light is. Read a
textbook. Nothing is accelerated.

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?

Look at QM and you will get your answers but it takes some study on
your part.
> 
>         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).   

Their work is accepted because it has a century of careful experimental
verification behind it. If there were problems, there would be a lot of
work going on to investigate them.
> 
> 
>>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. 

You do not know what this means.

  Ergo, claims of independency
> from a putative medium has yet to be demonstrated.

Ergo, your statement is meaningless.

   For those of us
> whose intuitions point towards a medium, the nature of the putative
> medium remains mysterious. 

If you were to study some, it would not be so mysterious.

  But we are not claiming otherwise.  To wit,
> a science left properly untold is truer than a science improperly told.
> 
So you feel that by not studying your are right twice a day like a
stopped clock?
> 
> 
>>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.

You do realize that there has been study done in the last century or
so regarding these subjects. Reading some science would help your
problem.
>         
>          
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
Statements like the above are what come from not studying or
understanding science.
> 
>         Best of luck.
> 
>         -zookumar-
> ps:     "www.infowars.com"
>