🚀 go-pugleaf

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 lower the resistance in a vacuum and light will travel
faster but many things I have said in the past have come to be known
as common knowledge today.