The Fixation with Vacuum

[Roger Munday]

“electromagnetic energy propagating through space, with no further structural details needed”

“wireless radiation in space.”

“EM radiation in space, and which has no connection to magnetic fields as we commonly understand such.”

At least David Tombe mentions the fact, which most of you avoid stating, in that you are talking about propagation through a vacuum, which of course is impossible.

The simple experiment of suspending two massive steel balls below demonstrates the failure of this general belief in an all permeating vacuum, e.g. to explain the transmission of a force through the generally accepted, hypothetical atomic structure of the Earth’s atmosphere at the surface.

When will you ever learn?

[Roger Munday]

As not one of you has an answer to this question, you conveniently ignore it.

As a result of your physics 'education' (or rather indoctrination) decades ago, you cannot begin to consider the possibility that your "vacuum" is an impossible state universally.

Obviously there is a force acting here, and everywhere, and it is evident, but you will carry on believing in a mythical one way, "gravitational" force acting through vacua.

And, on this basis, escape into the sub-atomic arena.

Roger Munday

 

[Cornelis Verhey]

Roger M.

This is not what you where told!

Cornelis Verhey

[Roger Munday]

[Roger Munday]

A single 5 cm long neodymium magnet extends a continuous magnetic field into a spherical volume of atmosphere 2 metres in diameter.

To be completed.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021, 7:56 AM Roger Munday, <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Roger Munday]

A single 5 cm long neodymium magnet extends a continuous magnetic field into a spherical volume of atmosphere 2 Metres in diametre.

At sea level the atmosphere is composed of 2 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre, which means that this 4 cubic Metre volume atmospheric magnetic field is composed of, to the human mind an inconceivable number of atoms, at around 1.2 x 10²⁶.

These atoms are individually aligned with the N-S magnetic field generated by the magnet, and all these atoms are actively diverting the continuous, but weaker, magnetic field generated by the Earth.

The individual fields generated by these atoms is of course of a moment appropriate to their physical dimensions, in other words these are, individually, inconceivably weak.

But of course the collective forces generated by these enormous numbers of atoms are significant.

However you all believe that this vast number of atoms are vacuous and are separated by a vacuum and do not interact communally, which of course is absolutely impossible.

And you will carry on believing in this impossibility.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Substance and Polarization

Substance

“The real physical matter of which a thing consists and which has a tangible solid presence.”

Polarize

“restrict the vibrations of a transverse wave of light to one direction”

“give magnetic or electric polarity to a substance”

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Books by Thomas Kuhn and Henning Genz

Thomas Kuhn in pages 1955 – 198 of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

”We do not see electrons.”

“We do not see electric currents at all”

Henning Genz in - “Nothingness – the Science of Empty Space”

Page 64 - “The laws of physics will not allow the existence of a completely empty space”.

Page 207 - “There is no such thing as a completely empty space”

Roger Munday

[Carl Reiff]

Just for the heck of it, Roger.  An inquiry to ChatGPT:

Can you discern the meaning/applicability of the word "space" in “The laws of physics will not allow the existence of a completely empty space”? It seems ambiguous. It could mean all of "outer space" or space/volume within an evacuation chamber. What do you say?

(Paraphrase)
In that statement, “space” refers to any physical region of spacetime having volume, not specifically “outer space.” The claim is meant to apply universally: whether the region is the vast interstellar medium or the interior of a laboratory vacuum chamber, the laws of physics imply that a perfectly empty region—containing absolutely no particles, fields, or quantum fluctuations—cannot exist.

Okay, let's go with a vacuum chamber. Granted, it can't be completely empty of any/all particles/atoms. But what about betwixt them?

(Paraphrase)
Even “between” atoms or particles in a vacuum chamber, the region is not physically empty. Modern physics treats all of space as permeated by quantum fields (electromagnetic field, electron field, quark fields, etc.). What we call “particles” are localized excitations of those fields, but the fields themselves are present everywhere continuously.

Because of this:

• There is no gap where nothing at all exists; the fields remain present even where no particles are detected.

• Quantum mechanics predicts vacuum fluctuations (temporary energy variations), meaning the lowest-energy state of a region still has non-zero activity (often called zero-point energy).

• Effects such as the Casimir effect experimentally demonstrate that the “empty” space between closely spaced plates still contains measurable field energy.

So in a vacuum chamber, even if all atoms and molecules were removed, the regions between where particles happen to be would still contain quantum fields and their unavoidable fluctuations; physics therefore does not allow a perfectly empty “void” even at the smallest scales.

Okay, let's limit the inquiry to physical matter. Not fields or quantum level items.

If we restrict the discussion only to physical matter (atoms, molecules, particles with rest mass) and deliberately ignore fields and quantum-vacuum considerations, then the situation is simpler:

• In a sufficiently good vacuum chamber, the regions between particles can indeed contain no matter at all.

• Ultra-high-vacuum systems routinely achieve densities where the average distance between molecules is many centimeters or even meters, meaning most of the chamber volume is, in the matter-only sense, empty.

• The limitation is practical, not fundamental: outgassing from chamber walls, cosmic rays, residual leaks, and diffusion prevent the density from ever reaching exactly zero particles everywhere simultaneously.

So, under a matter-only definition, the “betwixt them” regions can be treated as empty of matter, though never perfectly so across the entire chamber at all times because a finite (however tiny) number of particles will always remain.

I don't need/want any reply, but I'm sure you won't be able to stop yourself.  Go ahead and please prove me wrong.

----------------------------------

[Roger Munday]

Carl, et al,

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/fundamentals-of-physics/

I suggest that you all download and read this paper. 

This proves that the hypothetical "interatomic vacuum" is not a possible "state".

Roger Munday

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/ae26ea46-082f-4d52-9039-73fb5dd51b74%40elgenwave.com.

[Samer]

Hello everyone,

Please unsubscribe me from the list.

All the best,

Samer

PS: Always open to call one on one about dissident point of views. Andre Assis is the real Einstein!