Permittivity and Permeability Constants of Vacuum
GSS
represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of the
physical space or vacuum. For detailed presentation of this notion,
kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html
GSS
Sue...
Good page! :-)
It. should be required reading for someone in the market
for more than just a few cubic metres of 377 ohm
'free space'.
Henri Wilson is selling some space at 0 ohms and
infinity that doesn't reflect. Marvelous stuff! . ;-)
I am not placing an order for any 'till it is appropriately
discounted for all the ohms the manufacturer leaves out.
Sue...
GSS
But how much 'space' does a person really need?
Does it depend on one's real 'potential'?
Or does it depend on what 'signal' one wants to convey?
GSS
Mandy Meson
>But how much 'space' does a person really need?
>Does it depend on one's real 'potential'?
>Or does it depend on what 'signal' one wants to convey?
>
>GSS
This is a social issue, and set by society.
For example small scale murders, like the one who killed a film maker
in my country, are put is a mall enclosed space (or cell) with 24/7 video
observation, while the big scale murderers, like for example GWBush, are put
in a big space (White House) with 24/7 video coverage.
One could then say that the permittivity depends on the current local
consensus.
This also goes for the 'signal' (bomb Iran versus bomb US).
Just a few miles make all the difference.
Rela Tiviti's fault.
dda1
GSS wrote:
<all imbecility snipped>
> GSS
Self agrandizing word salad from persistent cretin Gurcharn Sandhu.
Many more such cretins like you in India?
FrediFizzx
news:1150449153....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quantum Vacuum Charge rules, baby! It ties it all together and explains
why eps0 and mu0 are real physical parameters in any system of units.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Tom Roberts
> Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
> represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of the
> physical space or vacuum.
No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units conversion
factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....
Tom Roberts
FrediFizzx
news:TIEkg.63333$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Permeability to 1/4pi? What unit system is that? And I sure would like
to see in which unit system they are set to 1. ;-) They actually are
properties of the quantum "vacuum".
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Sorcerer
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TIEkg.63333$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
Androcles
Sorcerer
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fgkeeF...@individual.net...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
(you'll be next)
Androcles.
Phineas T Puddleduck
Sorcerer <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
Wow - you actually EXPECT to be able to see an acretion disc of
diameter lightyears from galactic distances?
I kept you out of my killfile for giggles but after reading your
website, in you go *PLONK*
And british too. Sigh.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approachs
the odour of roses."
srp
To my knowledge, in SI, eps_0 can be set to 1/(4 pi c^2 10^-7)
André Michaud
FrediFizzx
news:uqFkg.190328$8W1.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Go for it ya handle-stealin' freakin' moronic jackass and slime-dog
belly-crawler. Do you really think anyone important cares about your
petty assertions? ROTFLMAO! Everyone here knows you are a moronic
troll polluting the groups. You really should take my advice,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/upload/nice.jpg
Take it to alt.flame; they got some pros over there that will put you to
shame.
FrediFizzx... out
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John C. Polasek
Why do you say that Andre? To denominate eps0 in terms of c^-2 , I
have in Eq. 5-35 of my book
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 Farad/meter
where L is the electron-positron cell size 3.54e-14m
which comes down to
e^2/eps0*L = mc^2.
Is that of any use?
JP
FrediFizzx
news:m1b892hrhs0pt28rs...@4ax.com...> >Tom Roberts a écrit :
> >> GSS wrote:
> >>> Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
> >>> represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of
the
> >>> physical space or vacuum.
> >>
> >> No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units conversion
> >> factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
> >> Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Roberts
> >
> >To my knowledge, in SI, eps_0 can be set to 1/(4 pi c^2 10^-7)
> >
> Why do you say that Andre?
André and I had a big discussion about this recently. Guess you missed
it. Basically André is creating a new unit system based on SI that is
somewhat interesting.
> To denominate eps0 in terms of c^-2 , I
> have in Eq. 5-35 of my book
> eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 Farad/meter
> where L is the electron-positron cell size 3.54e-14m
> which comes down to
> e^2/eps0*L = mc^2.
> Is that of any use?
> JP
L = e^2/(eps0 mc^2)
alpha = e^2/(4pi eps0 hbar c)
So your L is 2*alpha*lambda_C, lambda_C being electron compton
wavelength. I think it is too small for "our world" and too big for
Uspace. Your mistake is in using e^2 instead of 4pi*eps0*hbar*c,
quantum "vacuum" charge. L should just be,
L = hbar/m_e*c = lambda_C/2pi
for the cell size wrt our spacetime.
FrediFizzx
srp
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:06:36 GMT, srp <sr...@globetrotter.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom Roberts a écrit :
>>> GSS wrote:
>>>> Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
>>>> represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of the
>>>> physical space or vacuum.
>>> No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units conversion
>>> factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
>>> Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Roberts
>> To my knowledge, in SI, eps_0 can be set to 1/(4 pi c^2 10^-7)
>>
>> André Michaud
> Why do you say that Andre?
This is simply an alternate definition of eps_0. The corresponding
mu_0 is = 4 pi 10^-7. From Stratton. I also saw it used in various
other refs, Resnick and Halliday for example.
> To denominate eps0 in terms of c^-2 , I
> have in Eq. 5-35 of my book
> eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 Farad/meter
> where L is the electron-positron cell size 3.54e-14m
> which comes down to
> e^2/eps0*L = mc^2.
>
> Is that of any use?
> JP
Well, in my model, your L2 = alpha lambda_C
and is what I named the integrated electron Compton wavelength
(your equation 4-5)
because it turns out to be the lower limit of integration of the
energy of a localized electron (from infinity down to r=r_e.
So, your L is twice that wavelength L = 2 L2
In my model, there is no need anymore for eps_0 nor mu_0.
When combined in a certain manner with the integrated wavelength,
they integrate to provide a transverse integrated amplitude from
which the energy of the particle can be calculated from transverse
acceleration without exceeding the speed of light.
For the electron rest energy, for example,
m_e c^2 = E_e = (e^2 10^-7) c^2/((lambda_C alpha)/(2 pi)) (joules)
In my model, joules define as (C^2 m)/s^2
André Michaud
arvee
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:TIEkg.63333$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > GSS wrote:
> > > Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
> > > represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of
> the
> > > physical space or vacuum.
> >
> > No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units conversion
> > factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
> > Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....
>
> Permeability to 1/4pi? What unit system is that? >
The old MKS system, I think, with charge measured in statcoulombs. In
that system, the force F (dynes) between two charges Q1 and Q2 at
distance r (cm) is F = Q1*Q2/r^2. Many of the EM books up to about the
mid 1950's used that system, but is has now passed out of fashion.
R.G. Vickson
FrediFizzx
news:1150575109.9...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> FrediFizzx wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:TIEkg.63333$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> > > GSS wrote:
> > > > Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
> > > > represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties
of
> > the
> > > > physical space or vacuum.
> > >
> > > No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units conversion
> > > factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
> > > Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....
> >
> > Permeability to 1/4pi? What unit system is that? >
>
> The old MKS system, I think, with charge measured in statcoulombs. In
> that system, the force F (dynes) between two charges Q1 and Q2 at
> distance r (cm) is F = Q1*Q2/r^2. Many of the EM books up to about the
> mid 1950's used that system, but is has now passed out of fashion.
That would be the gaussian cgs system. Permittivity, not permeability,
is 1/4pi in that system. eps0 = 1/4pi in cgs. Heaviside-Lorentz units
does have eps0 = 1, however Coulomb's constant, k_e = 1/4pi so it is
basically the same thing.
Sue...
Quoting from: <<
Therefore it stands to reason that we must strive very hard
to unravel and to comprehend the deeper significance of the
proportionality constants 'e0' and 'm0' associated with the
entity called 'empty space' or 'vacuum' or the 'aether' medium
or identified by any other name. >>
I think if you unravel this special case of 'free space'
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
...you will find it adapts ~easily~ to the various systems
you mentioned in your page.
<< It is said, "Rose by any other
name will smell as sweet". I personally would like to call
this entity the 'Elastic Continuum'. >>
Coulomb's elastic is hard to sew. Why not call it
377 ohms... and ensure that it is. ?
Sue...
Henri Wilson
How does one measure the two constants without disturbing the absolute vacuum?
>Sue...
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Tom Potter
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:77899256v611r92ps...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Jun 2006 03:03:58 -0700, "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>GSS wrote:
>>> Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
>>> represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of the
>>> physical space or vacuum. For detailed presentation of this notion,
>>> kindly refer to,
>>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html
>>>
>>> GSS
>>
>>Good page! :-)
>>
>>It. should be required reading for someone in the market
>>for more than just a few cubic metres of 377 ohm
>>'free space'.
>>
>>Henri Wilson is selling some space at 0 ohms and
>>infinity that doesn't reflect. Marvelous stuff! . ;-)
>>
>>I am not placing an order for any 'till it is appropriately
>>discounted for all the ohms the manufacturer leaves out.
>
> How does one measure the two constants without disturbing the absolute
> vacuum?
If anyone really wants to understand
why the constants Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) exist,
I suggest that they visit my web site,
and read the article "Uniting the four forces".
In a few graphic steps,
this article concisely and clearly shows
that the "C" and "Z" of space are arbitrary constants,
and that permittivity and permeability of space constants
follow naturally from the selection of the values for
the "C" and "Z" of space.
I might also mention that the
"C" and "Z" of on non-space for non-lossy media
are functions of the "index of refraction" for each media.
In other words,
the "C", "index of refraction", and "Z" for space
are set arbitrarily to 299,792,458 meters per second, one "1.00000",
and approximately 377 ohms,
and the "C", "index of refraction", and "Z" for other materials
follow directly from this.
The values for the permittivity and permeability of space
follow naturally from the selection of the values
for the "C" and "Z" of space.
The article also demonstrates that the constants
are basically expressions of the way forces are perceived, (By object size)
and shows how the constants for forces, other than the "big four",
can be determined.
In other words,
forces should be categorized by magnitude,
rather than lumped into categories based on size
such as strong, weak, E-M, gravitational, etc.,
and all these constants can be done away with.
The "forces concept" focuses on size:
particles (Small nuclear force),
nuclei (Strong nuclear force),
atoms (E-M force),
larger bodies (Gravitational force)
and ignores the fact that a continuum of force levels exist for each size,
and it isolates some sizes (The big four)
while lumping some sizes together.
(Molecules, planetary systems, galaxies, etc.)
The article develops a unique Physical Properties Chart
that shows the relationships between the physical properties
much as the Periodic Chart shows the relationships
between the elements.
In other words, you can use the chart
to verify the dimensions of existing equations,
and to come up with unique equations of your own.
And if you like Towers of Babel,
you can separate out other "forces" by size,
and find the required constants to rationalize them.
And who knows?
The article might help you
get a Nobel Prize for discovering the
"C", "index of refraction", and "Z" for molecules and galaxies.
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
Sorcerer
"Tom Potter" <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e72gvg$1d9n$1...@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| The values for the permittivity and permeability of space
| follow naturally from the selection of the values
| for the "C" and "Z" of space.
Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA, so c = 0/0.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
Electrons travel from cathode to anode in the space enclosed
by TV tubes, z = 0.
Division by zero is undefined, you can achieve any values
you wish.
Androcles
Sue...
I don't trust it because the winding resistance isn't
shown on the LC on the chalkbord. Either we are
to assume it is superconductive or that what the
lecturerer's handwaving is all about. :o)
>
> In a few graphic steps,
> this article concisely and clearly shows
> that the "C" and "Z" of space are arbitrary constants,
>
> and that permittivity and permeability of space constants
> follow naturally from the selection of the values for
> the "C" and "Z" of space.
>
> I might also mention that the
> "C" and "Z" of on non-space for non-lossy media
> are functions of the "index of refraction" for each media.
Betting that homongenous spaces will radiate is usually
a pretty safe bet. So fixing some impedance/admittance
is a good way to stay out of a tail-chase about eps and mu.
377 ohms sounds good to me. If nothing reflects back to you
then you are matched to that one way or another
<< Note that in the far field, E and H are related by the
characteristic impedance of the medium (120 pi or 377
ohms for a vacuum). In the vicinity of r_o, there is a transition
region where all terms are of the same order of magnitude. >>
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
Sue...
Tom Potter
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
1. Don't create a strawman
by attributing Einstein's mistakes to me.
2. Arbitrary constants:
C - The "speed of light constant".
Zº - The impedance of space constant.
3. Defined by the selections of C and Zº.
?º = the permittivity of space constant = 1 / (C*Zº)
?º = the permeability of space constant = Zº / C
Yº = The admittance of space constant = 1 / Zº
4. As can be seen in the article on my web site
"Uniting the four forces",
conventional theories couple the time domain properties
(Which are Nature's real properties.)
to the mass domain properties via two routes,
the "space domain" properties
and the "electro-magnetic domain" properties.
The constant "C" defines the space domain properties
and the constant "Z0" defines the E-M domain properties.
Nature considers C and Zº to be one "1.00000000000.." for space,
whereas man considers C to be 299,792,458 meters per second
and Zº to be about 377 ohms.
Time periods (Auto-correlations)
and time intervals (Cross-correlations)
are Natures real stuff.
The space domain properties came about
because man perceived time intervals distinct from space
and he needed a constant to bridge the gap.
The E-M domain properties came about
because man perceives time intervals distinct from capacitances
and he needs a constant to bridge the gap.
5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.
Google "plate resistance" and "space charge".
Sorcerer
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| news:988lg.195431$8W1.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Tom Potter" <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:e72gvg$1d9n$1...@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| >
| > | The values for the permittivity and permeability of space
| > | follow naturally from the selection of the values
| > | for the "C" and "Z" of space.
| >
| > Light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA, so c = 0/0.
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif
| > Electrons travel from cathode to anode in the space enclosed
| > by TV tubes, z = 0.
| > Division by zero is undefined, you can achieve any values
| > you wish.
| 1. Don't create a strawman
| by attributing Einstein's mistakes to me.
It is your claim "values for the permittivity and permeability of space
follow naturally from the selection of the values for the "C" and "Z"
of space", is it not?
Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter.
| 2. Arbitrary constants:
| C - The "speed of light constant".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Do you mean the red C or the blue C, Potter?
| Zº - The impedance of space constant.
Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
of nothing", Potter.
| 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.
You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
| Google "plate resistance" and "space charge".
I've no intention of doing your homework for you, Potter, or
tackling your Aunt Sallies. You can tell me what your theories
are when I have adequate definitions of what the hell you are
babbling about.
Androcles.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
John C. Polasek
To be sure, the expression above was not used to compute L, merely on
expression among several, to accommodate Andre's c^-2.(JP)
>L = hbar/m_e*c = lambda_C/2pi
>
>for the cell size wrt our spacetime.
Your cell size is in real vacuum, but it's compressed by alpha in
pair-space. (Your mistake is that nothing can really happen in a
vacuum).
I forget how you derived your L, but here's how I derived mine, from
first principles, as usual. (Eq. 3-4 to 3-6 in my book or Eq. 5-7 on
my website Permittivity paper).
The capacity of the cube holding the pair is given by
C = L*eps0 (= eps0 * L^2/L)
A critical voltage Vc will pull both charges to the "walls"
and the resulting capacitive charge displaced is 2 e:
Vc*eps0*L = 2e
L = 2e/Vc*eps0
Vc is 1.022 MV defining the energy needed to free the two charges in
pair production. Each charge is dragged through Vc/2, total W = 1.022
MeV.
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
srp
I find it quite interesting John that you identified that alpha
"compressing cell size" out of normal space.
I derived the exact same constraint in my model as out of normal
space, which is that alpha compresses the amplitude orthogonally
to the direction of motion in normal space.
In my model, for any given localized electromagnetic particle,
(lambda alpha) /2 pi is the maximum transverse extent of to and fro
travel of its energy transversally to the direction of motion in
vacuum.
The general equation for a photon in my model is
E= hc/(2 lambda) + e^2/2C cos^2(wt) + Li^2/2 sin^2(wt)
C = capacitance of the particle
L = inductance
i = displacement current
hc/(2 lambda) = energy propelling the other half at c
> I forget how you derived your L, but here's how I derived mine, from
> first principles, as usual. (Eq. 3-4 to 3-6 in my book or Eq. 5-7 on
> my website Permittivity paper).
>
> The capacity of the cube holding the pair is given by
> C = L*eps0 (= eps0 * L^2/L)
> A critical voltage Vc will pull both charges to the "walls"
> and the resulting capacitive charge displaced is 2 e:
> Vc*eps0*L = 2e
> L = 2e/Vc*eps0
> Vc is 1.022 MV defining the energy needed to free the two charges in
> pair production. Each charge is dragged through Vc/2, total W = 1.022
> MeV.
>
> John Polasek
> http://www.dualspace.net
>> FrediFizzx
>>
>> Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
>> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
>> or postscript
>> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
>> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
>> http://www.vacuum-physics.com
>
André Michaud
FrediFizzx
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 10:46:58 -0700, "FrediFizzx"
> <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:m1b892hrhs0pt28rs...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:06:36 GMT, srp <sr...@globetrotter.net>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >> GSS wrote:
> >> >>> Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of
Vacuum
> >> >>> represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties
of
> >the
> >> >>> physical space or vacuum.
> >> >>
> >> >> No they don't. In modern physics they are merely units
conversion
> >> >> factors which can be set to 1 by an appropriate choice of units.
> >> >> Actually permeability is often set to 1/4pi....
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Tom Roberts
> >> >
> >> >To my knowledge, in SI, eps_0 can be set to 1/(4 pi c^2 10^-7)
> >> >
> >
> >> Why do you say that Andre?
> >
missed
> >it. Basically André is creating a new unit system based on SI that
is
> >somewhat interesting.
> >
> >> To denominate eps0 in terms of c^-2 , I
> >> have in Eq. 5-35 of my book
> >> eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 Farad/meter
> >> where L is the electron-positron cell size 3.54e-14m
> >> which comes down to
> >> e^2/eps0*L = mc^2.
> >> Is that of any use?
> >> JP
> >
> >L = e^2/(eps0 mc^2)
> >
> >alpha = e^2/(4pi eps0 hbar c)
> >
> >So your L is 2*alpha*lambda_C, lambda_C being electron compton
> >wavelength. I think it is too small for "our world" and too big for
> >Uspace. Your mistake is in using e^2 instead of 4pi*eps0*hbar*c,
> >quantum "vacuum" charge. L should just be,
>
> To be sure, the expression above was not used to compute L, merely on
> expression among several, to accommodate Andre's c^-2.(JP)
>
> >L = hbar/m_e*c = lambda_C/2pi
> >
> >for the cell size wrt our spacetime.
>
> Your cell size is in real vacuum, but it's compressed by alpha in
> pair-space. (Your mistake is that nothing can really happen in a
> vacuum).
No, in the "other" 3-brane it could be "compressed" by a factor of 10^20
order due to "warped geometry" between the two 3-branes. We can only
say what things are wrt our 3-brane. The other one is always beyond our
event horizon other than virtual pairs.
> I forget how you derived your L, but here's how I derived mine, from
> first principles, as usual. (Eq. 3-4 to 3-6 in my book or Eq. 5-7 on
> my website Permittivity paper).
Unfortunately, it is not from "first principles" since you are only
considering e+e- virtual pairs.
> The capacity of the cube holding the pair is given by
> C = L*eps0 (= eps0 * L^2/L)
> A critical voltage Vc will pull both charges to the "walls"
> and the resulting capacitive charge displaced is 2 e:
> Vc*eps0*L = 2e
> L = 2e/Vc*eps0
> Vc is 1.022 MV defining the energy needed to free the two charges in
> pair production. Each charge is dragged through Vc/2, total W = 1.022
> MeV.
How do you explain pion production from the vacuum? You are leaving out
a vast amount of other particles which when all combined happens to add
up to the sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) for "vacuum" charge. Not 2e. The
sqrt(alpha) is simply the ratio between electronic charge and the total
of "vacuum" charge.
Tom Potter
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
As can be seen
"Sorcerer" uses several "logical fallacies" in his response to my post:
creating a strawman, childishly attacking the messenger
rather than addressing the message in a rational, intelligent way,
obfuscation, equivocation, etc.
But to address the points he did address:
1. "plate resistance" and "space charge" have a resistive component.
Note that the plates (And elements) of vacuum tubes do heat up,
and sometimes get red hot.
Capacitances and inductances DO NOT dissipate energy.
Vacuum tubes also have interelectrode capacitances,
and a tiny amount of inductance.
2. Note that "Sorcerer" calls space "nothing"
when it is clear that a "space" is proportional to a "time interval".
3. Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
"Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter."
It is pretty clear that the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c",
is arbitrarily set to equate a "time interval"
(A time interval is the basic measure of a vacuum.)
to the distance between two points on some physical object
such as a King's body part.
And as can be seen,
if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the impedance of space Z0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction,
then Z0 is an "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the permittivity of space e0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction then e0 is a "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
and the permeability of space mu0 is the same everywhere,
and in every direction then mu0 is a "PERMEABILITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
The bottom lines are:
1. Space is a time interval.
2. The SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
is used to equate pure space (Time intervals)
to the SPACE between two points on a physical object.
length = time interval * c
3. The "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT"
which is defined by the arbitrary constants
the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
and the "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT",
is used to equate pure space
to the CAPACITANCE between two points on a physical object.
Note that the amount of "space" (Time interval) within a physical object
is almost always greater than a parallel sample of a vacuum.
In other words,
an event propagated through a vacuum space
generally has a shorter time interval
than an event propagated through a physical object
parallel to the vacuum space.
I suggest that "Sorcerer" or anyone who wants to comprehend
the real nature of space, the speed of light, impedance, etc.
should visit my web site, and read the short article
"Uniting the four forces",
as the article explains this in a few graphic steps,
far more clearly than can be done using ASCII characters
in a news group.
John C. Polasek
I don't know if you can justify the equation, because the first term
hc/(2 lambda) is 1/2h*f*137 where w = 2pi*f is the oscillation
frequency. It seems you have taken hnu and multiplied it by 137/2.
Also how would you derive the capacitance of the photon, when
capacitance is a lump parameter of coulombs per volt difference.
In my theory a photon would be a ripple running at light speed through
pair-space, (in which sqrt(Y/rho) = c, with Y = Youngs modulus & rho,
mass density).
The (still uncreated) pairs in pair-space are what gives it
permittivity eps0.
JP
John C. Polasek
<fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am starting at the bottom: How can the empty vacuum exhibit exactly
the coefficient that is the energy-storing epsilon0? And I came out
with the exact answer: by having uncreated, elastically joined, pairs
spaced 3.5e-14m with a spring coefficient K of 2.6e14N/m. (See Sec. 17
& 21of my permittivity paper on the website).
Our universe was formed by streams of electrons taken out of this
pairspace at light speed and after 10 billion years the cooking has
produced what you like, pions. Every particle you know has its
duplicate as an antiparticle in pairspace.
Everything our empty universe has its dual in pairspace minus the
electrons taken, the places marked by the positrons left behind. The
stealing of electrons produced the pressure gradients that make
gravity in pair-space. That's where the real physics is, not in the
void of the vacuum. C'mon!
>
>> The capacity of the cube holding the pair is given by
>> C = L*eps0 (= eps0 * L^2/L)
>> A critical voltage Vc will pull both charges to the "walls"
>> and the resulting capacitive charge displaced is 2 e:
>> Vc*eps0*L = 2e
>> L = 2e/Vc*eps0
>> Vc is 1.022 MV defining the energy needed to free the two charges in
>> pair production. Each charge is dragged through Vc/2, total W = 1.022
>> MeV.
>
>How do you explain pion production from the vacuum? You are leaving out
>a vast amount of other particles which when all combined happens to add
>up to the sqrt(4pi*eps0*hbar*c) for "vacuum" charge. Not 2e. The
>sqrt(alpha) is simply the ratio between electronic charge and the total
>of "vacuum" charge.
>
>FrediFizzx
>
>Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
>or postscript
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
>http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
>http://www.vacuum-physics.com
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
srp
Presently, in my model, hc combines to be what I symbolized by
capital H, in fact, in my model, h is derived from H.
H = electromagnetic transverse acceleration constant.
H = lambda E = e^2/(2 eps0 alpha)
Derived from re-definition of energy from Marmet's paper.
It is the transverse amplitude based counterpart of time based
Planck's h constant. This is why it is used with the wavelength
instead of the frequency.
A pity you seemed to have missed the conversation Fred and I had
on all aspects of this.
> Also how would you derive the capacitance of the photon, when
> capacitance is a lump parameter of coulombs per volt difference.
Same remark, I discussed all of this with Freddyfizzx some time ago.
Summarily, for any photon, in my model,
C = eps_0 2 lambda alpha
L = (mu_0 lambda alpha)/(8 pi^2)
i = sqrt(E/L)
where E is the photon's total energy.
> In my theory a photon would be a ripple running at light speed through
> pair-space, (in which sqrt(Y/rho) = c, with Y = Youngs modulus & rho,
> mass density).
In my model, a photon is a localized quantum of energy amounting to
half the photon's energy LC oscillating between electrostatic and
magnetostatic spaces at the photon's frequency, while being propelled
in normal space by the other half of its total complement of energy.
> The (still uncreated) pairs in pair-space are what gives it
> permittivity eps0.
As mentionned, in the most detailed equation set (transverse
acceleration based), eps0 and mu0 are not required anymore.
André Michaud
Sorcerer
As can be seen, Potter doesn't address the issues I raised.
Instead he creates a strawman, childishly attacking the messenger
rather than addressing the message in a rational, intelligent way,
obfuscation, equivocation, etc.
It is your claim "values for the permittivity and permeability of space
follow naturally from the selection of the values for the "C" and "Z"
of space", is it not?
Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter.
Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
of nothing", Potter.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Do you mean the red C or the blue C, Potter?
You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
But to address the points he did address:
No you haven't, liar. Get back after you do.
Androcles
Sorcerer
| It is pretty clear that the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c",
| is arbitrarily set to equate a "time interval"
| (A time interval is the basic measure of a vacuum.)
It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
| to the distance between two points on some physical object
| such as a King's body part.
|
| And as can be seen,
| if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
| and the impedance of space Z0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction,
| then Z0 is an "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
What do you mean by "as can be seen, if", Potter?
How is anyone supposed to see an if?
As can be seen, if Potter is a lunatic then Potter is a
babblemouth, as can be seen.
|
| And if
Another if...?
| space is homogeneous and isotropic,
| and the permittivity of space e0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction then e0 is a "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
It is zero, Potter, as can be seen. Perhaps you are another crackpot
aetherialist.
|
| And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
And yet another "if"?
| and the permeability of space mu0 is the same everywhere,
| and in every direction then mu0 is a "PERMEABILITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
As can be seen, it is zero, Potter. The aether was blown away over 100 years
ago,
and it's properties die with it.
|
| The bottom lines are:
|
| 1. Space is a time interval.
You don't know the difference between a yardstick and a clock, Potter.
|
| 2. The SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
| is used to equate pure space (Time intervals)
| to the SPACE between two points on a physical object.
|
| length = time interval * c
Oh brother... x = vt. What will they think of next?
|
| 3. The "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT"
| which is defined by the arbitrary constants
| the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
| and the "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT",
| is used to equate pure space
| to the CAPACITANCE between two points on a physical object.
You wouldn't know a capacitor if it leapt off your motherboard
and bit you, Potter.
Go away, you are a hopeless boor.
Androcles
Henri Wilson
>
>"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
>news:CEglg.453474$xt.4...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "Tom Potter" <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e73puc$jio$1...@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
>> Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
What sort of idiotic claim is this?
>
>3. Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
>"Don't make claims you cannot support, Potter."
>
>It is pretty clear that the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c",
>is arbitrarily set to equate a "time interval"
>(A time interval is the basic measure of a vacuum.)
>to the distance between two points on some physical object
>such as a King's body part.
Bullshit.
You are merely replacing 'distance' by the time it would take for light to
travel from A to B if it moved at c.
Absolute spatial intervals are defined by rigid rods. They can be taken
anywhere, anyhow and will maintain their original definition of the interval.
>And as can be seen,
>if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
>and the impedance of space Z0 is the same everywhere,
>and in every direction,
>then Z0 is an "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
How do you measure it without disturbing what you are trying to measure?
You cannot.
How do you know that differently moviung observers will get the same answer at
the same point in space?
You don't...
>And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
>and the permittivity of space e0 is the same everywhere,
>and in every direction then e0 is a "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
It has the value of zero in completely empty space.
>And if space is homogeneous and isotropic,
>and the permeability of space mu0 is the same everywhere,
>and in every direction then mu0 is a "PERMEABILITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT".
It also has the value of zero in completely empty space.
Space is NOT empty if an electric or magnetic field permeates it.
> The bottom lines are:
>
>1. Space is a time interval.
Crap.
>
>2. The SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
>is used to equate pure space (Time intervals)
>to the SPACE between two points on a physical object.
It possibly could be .....but why bother when one can use numbers of rigid
rods?
>length = time interval * c
Why bother with that silly roundabout impractical definition?
Length = number of aligned metre rods.
>
>3. The "PERMITTIVITY OF A VACUUM CONSTANT"
>which is defined by the arbitrary constants
>the SPEED OF LIGHT IN A VACUUM CONSTANT "c"
>and the "IMPEDANCE OF A VACUUM CONSTANT",
>is used to equate pure space
>to the CAPACITANCE between two points on a physical object.
Your so-called 'vacuum constant' happens to be the speed of light wrt its
source...nothing else.
>
>Note that the amount of "space" (Time interval) within a physical object
>is almost always greater than a parallel sample of a vacuum.
>In other words,
>an event propagated through a vacuum space
>generally has a shorter time interval
>than an event propagated through a physical object
>parallel to the vacuum space.
Only a madman would reason this way.
>I suggest that "Sorcerer" or anyone who wants to comprehend
>the real nature of space, the speed of light, impedance, etc.
>should visit my web site, and read the short article
>"Uniting the four forces",
>as the article explains this in a few graphic steps,
>far more clearly than can be done using ASCII characters
>in a news group.
Tom Potter
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
> It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
> other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
"c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
It is not a speed.
As I pointed out,
when you use the same clock ticks
to quantize the time interval between a cause and an effect,
and the time period between the same cause and effect,
you will always come up with the same number,
no matter when and where you quantize it.
All this "same number" does is relate
time periods to time intervals.
You can set "c" to ANY number you like,
and all that it does is express distances in
some other unit.
I might point out that the physical constants
c, G, permittivity of space, permeability of space,
and the impedance of space are just that, constants,
and that these constants apply to a certain set of conditions,
namely so-called space, which I called a VACUUM
in order to make the point that other bodies were not involved,
other than the bodies associated with some measured caused,
and its' related measured effect.
Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
"You don't know the difference between a yardstick and a clock, Potter."
I might point out that Einstein's "rigid rods" and "Sorcerer's" "yardsticks"
are nasty temperature sensitive, pressure sensitive, contamination
sensitive,
bending sensitive, acceleration sensitive beasts,
and that precision clocks can measure distances and lengths
far, far, far more accurately and reliabilbly that his "yardsticks",
or Einstein's "rigid rods".
"Sorcerer's" main arguments seem to be:
"Potter is a lunatic"
"Potter is a babblemouth"
"Perhaps you are another crackpot aetherialist."
"You wouldn't know a capacitor if it leapt off your motherboard and bit you,
Potter."
"Go away, you are a hopeless boor."
All heady stuff.
Tom Potter
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
It is interesting to see that "Henri Wilson"
does not know that time intervals are a more fundamental
and reliable measure of space than "rigid rods".
Einstein's "rigid rods" are nasty, bending sensitive, temperature sensitive,
acceleration sensitive, contamination sensitive, pressure sensitive, beasts.
Regarding "Henri Wilson" question"
"How do you measure it <Z0> without disturbing what you are trying to
measure?"
I suggest that "Henri Wilson" do a Google search on "Schrödinger's cat",
and he will learn that it is impossible to observe <measure> anything
without affecting it.
Observers become part of the systems they are observing.
"Henri Wilson's" main arguments seem to be:
"What sort of idiotic claim is this?"
"Crap."
"You don't..."
"You cannot."
"Only a madman would reason this way."
Pretty heady stuff, eh?
"Henri Wilson" does seem to comprehend
(As he makes this point several time.)
that in a completely empty universe,
no properties would exist.
In a completely empty universe,
there would be no sentient beings around
to come up with the concept of physical properties and constants.
"Henri Wilson" does seem to make a mistake when he asserts that
constants and properties that don't exist have a value of "zero".
--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
"Only a madman would reason this way." ;-))
Sorcerer
| Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
| > It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
| > other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
|
| "c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
| It is not a speed.
I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
I hereby nominate
Tom Potter
as the
**Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**
Any seconds??????????????????????
It's gonna a close contest, might even come down to the Florida vote
to decide it.
Androcles
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <7ege929lfmngovvfu...@4ax.com>:
>>> Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
>>> of nothing", Potter.
>>>
>>> | 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.
Indeed
>>> You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
>>> The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
>>> Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
>>> A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
>>> It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.
Total and utterly bulshit.
A normal CRT (color) has 3 electron guns, with each about .5 mA (500 ua)
max current (normal operation), so a total of 1.5mA electron current to the
high voltage connection from the cathode*S*.
The high voltage is 25kV, so the impedance seen would be 25000 / .0015 =
16 666 666 Ohm, or 16 MOhm. (mega ohm).
As the electron beam is constantly modulated by the luminance, or in case of
color the RGB signals, the curent varies constantly.
So it makes no sense / has no practical use to speak of an impedance.
[The] Electronics is only concerned with keeping the high voltage stable
as the laod varies.
A changing high voltage would give a changing picture size for the same
deflection power (magnetic field).
Feedback circuits are used for stabilization.
In the very very old tube color sets, a parallel stabilizer tube was used
(PD100), it had a lot of roentgen radiation too...
Not going to read the rest.
WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Man human species, how did it ever get this far.
OK it took some millions of years.
In the lifetime of the current bunch we should have no expectations.
But some did miracles in the previous century.
So maybe there is still hope.
eeh, maybe not.
Sam would say: yes/no that makes 50 percent.
No Sam would not say that..... Ok let Sam peak for himself.
Tom Potter
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
It is interesting to see that the best that "Sorcerer"
can respond to my positions
(Tubes have plate resistance.
c is a constant, not a velocity.
Space has a characteristic impedance.,etc.)
is:
"I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense."
"I hereby nominate
Tom Potter
as the **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**"
Great arguments "Sorcerer"!
I'll keep these arguments in mind,
and I'll use them when I am unable to make my case
in a rational, logical and intelligent way.
Tom Potter
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e78i65$4o8$1...@news.datemas.de...
Thanks to "Jan Panteltje" for supporting my position that:
"The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero."
and that tubes have "plate resistance".
But regarding "Jan Panteltje's" comment:
"So it makes no sense / has no practical use to speak of an impedance.
[The] Electronics is only concerned with keeping the high voltage stable
as the laod varies."
If the load varies, and the voltage stays constant,
the impedance varies.
impedance = voltage / current
Regarding "Jan Panteltje's" comment:
"how did it <Mankind> ever get this far.
OK it took some millions of years."
A better measure might be necessity
and man-years, rather than years.
For the first million years,
there weren't that many people around,
and of course, technology builds on technology.
It was not possible to make GPS and cellular phone systems
for almost fifty years after the German/American actress Hedy Lamar
invented spread spectrum modulation,
and after Edison invented the diode,
DeForrest stuck in a control grid and invented the triode,
then someone found that the cats whisker crystal was a diode
and the Bell Labs gang stuck a "control grid" in the crystal
and made the point contact transistor,
and then Texas Instruments and Fairchild
learned how to deposit "control grids" on crystals to form field effect
transistors
and added many active and inactive components to form integrated circuits
and then Intel put reprogrammable logic "integrated circuits" on a crystal
to make the microprocessor, etc.
Of course, the great advances in the next few years
will be in energy conservation, information systems mashups,
human engineered, graphics/sound software,
mobile access to and from data bases,
DNA technology for health, plant and animal engineering,
history construction, crime prevention, etc.
It's a shame to waste time, money, and minds
speculating about time travel, worm holes, gravitons, etc.
when the time and money could be better spent elsewhere.
As "Jan Panteltje" said:
"maybe there is still hope."
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Sorcerer
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
| news:wHMlg.200890$8W1.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Tom Potter" <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:e77pk6$31kb$1...@news.ndhu.edu.tw...
| >
| > | Regarding "Sorcerer's" statement:
| > | > It is pretty clear that the speed of light is just like any
| > | > other speed, |dx/dt|, Potter.
| > |
| > | "c", the "speed of light constant" is just that, a constant.
| > | It is not a speed.
| >
| > I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense
| >
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
| >
| > I hereby nominate
| > Tom Potter
| > as the
| >
| > **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**
| >
| > Any seconds??????????????????????
| >
| > It's gonna a close contest, might even come down to the Florida vote
| > to decide it.
|
| It is interesting to see that the best that "Sorcerer"
| can respond to my positions
| (Tubes have plate resistance.
You've never heard of superconductors, Potter?
It's cold on the Moon and I wouldn't a need a glass tube
to paint a picture, either. I can design a TV for a lunar environment
without the tube, and I'm not talking about plasma or LCD display.
The tube fullfills three functions, one is to keep air out and the other
two are to provide a fixed distance between cathode, anode, field and
frame coils.
I can use glass rods for the latter and I don't need to consider the
first. Electrons go right through a vacuum as if it were not there,
which it isn't.
| c is a constant, not a velocity.
c= 0/0, that's not a constant, that's undefined.
| Space has a characteristic impedance.,etc.)
| is:
|
| "I say you are ranting incomprehensible nonsense."
| "I hereby nominate
| Tom Potter
| as the **Loudmouth Arsehole of the Month**"
|
| Great arguments "Sorcerer"!
I know, I thought it would impress you (given the source I took it from).
|
| I'll keep these arguments in mind,
| and I'll use them when I am unable to make my case
| in a rational, logical and intelligent way.
You haven't make your case in a rational, logical and intelligent way,
but I'll gladly give you the opportunity.
Begin by proving c is dependent/independent of the source, we'll
worry about the medium (or lack off) and its properties later, but as I
recall,
MMX showed space didn't have any properties. Mu0 and epsilon0
are properties of aether, Potter, and it doesn't exist.
Androcles.
John C. Polasek
I havent followed all this but I believe you all started with an
argument about the Z of space.
Z = 377 ohms means in a far field radio signal you can calculate the H
field from the E field by
H = E/Z or volts/meter divided by ohms = amp turns/meter = H
It is a very real parameter and has nothing to do with resistive or
cathode ray ohms!
JP
Jan Panteltje
<tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in <e7908u$115o$1...@news.ndhu.edu.tw>:
>Thanks to "Jan Panteltje" for supporting my position that:
>"The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero."
>
>and that tubes have "plate resistance".
Yep, and i still learned about triodes with low Ri and penthodes
with high Ri (current source) in my school days.
>But regarding "Jan Panteltje's" comment:
>"So it makes no sense / has no practical use to speak of an impedance.
>[The] Electronics is only concerned with keeping the high voltage stable
>as the laod varies."
>
>If the load varies, and the voltage stays constant,
>the impedance varies.
>
>impedance = voltage / current
Yes you are right, but the man was relating to CRTs, and CRTs is what
I played a lot with, designed my first TV in 1968.
I have would those deflection coils, and transformers, all good old times,
people should know about electrostatic and magnetic deflection [of electron
beams = charged particles] hands on makes all the difference.
Design issues are quite tight for a TV CRT actually, you are limited by
what the HV rectifier / multiplier can do as current, the CRT characteristics,
and those are pretty much a known.. so that leaves only to be able to
create the 25kV and supply the current, and make that 25kV stable (and
filtering).
You have E background, so do I, many here do not and just RelaTitvit along...
;-)
E designers almost never enter stupid fights like we see here, learn
from the others designs, make things that ***have to**** work.
Nobody buys a TV that only shows 2 light dots, but look how they are selling
strings, LIGO, ITER, and all those other things you mentioned.
Regards
Jan
Sorcerer
It is news to me that there were any ampere turns in space to be counted,
my antenna doesn't have any turns and neither do my eyeballs.
Androcles
Henri Wilson
wrote:
You have wrongly attributed this message to me.
....please apologise or I'll sue.
Henri Wilson
They had beter be quick.
Homo sapiens is on the brink of extinction.
>
>It's a shame to waste time, money, and minds
>speculating about time travel, worm holes, gravitons, etc.
>when the time and money could be better spent elsewhere.
>
>As "Jan Panteltje" said:
>"maybe there is still hope."
There isn't. The world is irreversibly stuiffed.
>
>A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Tom Potter
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
"Sorcerer" raises a good point!
Electrons can go through vacuums, and wires, and all kinds of stuff
like it is not there,
so obviously, all this stuff doesn't exist!
But back to the points of contention.
I assert that vacuum tubes have plate resistance,
and that space has impedance,
and "Sorcerer" does not.
Tom Potter
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
You may be right.
Billions of people.
Diminishing supplies of energy.
Global warming.
Paranoids like Bush with fingers on nuclear weapons.
Where does it lead?
And how soon?
Art Deco
>In article <0otg92t7bn5au2hat...@4ax.com>, Henri Wilson
><HW@..(Henri> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >eeh, maybe not.
>> >Sam would say: yes/no that makes 50 percent.
>> >No Sam would not say that..... Ok let Sam peak for himself.
>>
>> You have wrongly attributed this message to me.
>> ....please apologise or I'll sue.
>>
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Wooooot! Please to add moi to this fine ko0kso0t, Herr Wilson!
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer
"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity
"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <0otg92t7bn5au2hat...@4ax.com>:
>You have wrongly attributed this message to me.
>....please apologise or I'll sue.
Oh go to hell.
I replied to a text in a posting that was in itself correctly prepended
with >>>>>
>HW.
Idiot
Learn ho to use Usenet.
Sue...
You can't sue because I am Sue and I am busy
suing Bush for Sue and identity theft.
http://media.bestprices.com/content/isbn/38/0439099838.jpg
Study your Maxwell's or I'll bite you in half.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
Sue...
Sorcerer
Good grief... someone that listens to reason is a rare find.
|
| Electrons can go through vacuums, and wires, and all kinds of stuff
| like it is not there,
| so obviously, all this stuff doesn't exist!
Facetiousness will not win you any brownie points, Potter, but there
is truth in what you say. The wires and all kinds of stuff are mostly
empty space, the electrons do not go through the nuclei of atoms,
they go around them through the nothing.
|
| But back to the points of contention.
|
| I assert that vacuum tubes have plate resistance,
| and that space has impedance,
| and "Sorcerer" does not.
Assertion carries no weight. The burden of proof is upon the
claimant.
The point of contention isn't plate resistance which can be eliminated
in practice by using a superconductor and in theory by ignoring it as
irrelevant, it is the alleged permittivity and permeability of nothing.
What is the velocity of sound in a vacuum, Potter?
Is it zero, infinity or something in between?
What is the volume of a gas at zero degrees Kelvin?
They are meaningless questions, of course. One can extrapolate,
playing mathematical games, but there is no sound in a vacuum and
there are no gases at zero Kelvin.
Electrical impedance and/or resistance is limitation to current for a
given pressure, resistance being analogous to a pinhole drilled in a
cylindrical mug to limit the flow of coffee leaking onto the table.
By enlarging the hole, the flow is increased. Enlarge it enough and there
is no mug. The entire volume of coffee then falls under the influence
of gravity, independently of the resistance of the mug.
Coffee mugs provide infinite resistance to the flow of coffee
onto your clean shirt, drill the hole and you'll need to launder your
shirt or go without coffee.
Impedance is the equivalent of tilting the mug to drink the coffee,
and is zero when the mug is upside down. The hole at the top
of the mug offers no resistance.
It may be somewhat unpleasant and tasteless to consider spitting the
coffee back into the mug to repeat the cycle, but it can be done in
small quantities. <sputter>
Likewise, the vacuum of space offers no resistance to the flow of
photons or any other projectile, be it electron, bullet, spacecraft, planet
or star.
The photon is a single cycle of finite energy, represented by the green
radial vector in this gif:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.gif
No current passes through the plates of the capacitor.
The velocity of light in independent of the motion of the nothing, Einstein
was a muggle, for it is very much dependent upon the motion of the source.
That the source happens to have little motion compared to the motion of
the photon is irrelevant.
There is no longer any aether, hasn't been since the great sorcerer
Michelson
canned it, and although it once had the properties of mu0 and eps0, those
properties are now in the trashcan along with the aether that owned
them.
You can assert all you want to, Potter, wishful thinking isn't magic.
BTW, my last graduate was a Potter -- Harry Potter. I wonder if you will
do as well as he...
Alas, wizards are hard to find, but you may show promise if you'll
learn real magic before you try to write you own spells. The Wizard
of Menlo Park was not a sorcerer, I hasten to add, and neither was
the Wizard of Oz. It takes work for a wizard to graduate to sorcerer,
impossible for a muggle.
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another wizard's engineering"
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Sorcerer
Incidentally, the EHT of 25 kV is derived from the line-output transformer
to make use of the voltage pulse during flyback when the energy is recovered
from the deflection coils, it is a simple matter of efficient design. The
almost
vertical pulse of the triangular waveform is ideal. The alternative is a
specially
designed EHT power supply (which do exist commerically, in particular for
oscilloscopes where flyback isn't always a requirement). I'm sure you've
displayed TV images on an oscilloscope as I have, and that is electrostatic
deflection.
Androcles.
Tom Potter
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
Considering that we are in basic agreement,
except on how we view the physical properties,
I'll let it go at that.
I suspect that you and I,
are two of the few folks who understand
that a so-called photon is a SINGLE cycle of,
you say energy, I say action.
No doubt, most of physics can't be extrapolated to absolute zero,
but once "something wonderful happens",
all kinds of properties pop into existence.
Sorcerer
Glad to hear it.
100 years ago energy was called "work", which is why the W appears
in http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img157.gif
The shitheads think Einstein found something remarkable, but it was under
anyone's nose the whole time.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E^2/Energy1.gif
Whether a cannonball uses 'energy' to knock down castle walls,
whether it 'acts' upon them or whether it does 'work' upon them,
it all the same to me. Crystalline dried piss (oops, urine, same thing,
one should always call a spade a shovel for some unknown reason)
makes saltpetre -- saltpetre, coal and brimstone (or sulfer if you are
Americano) makes gunpowder -- gunpowder makes cannonballs work.
The original energy/work/action came from the sun.
Lift a cannonball onto the table, it rolls off, exchanging potential energy
for kinetic energy, does work and breaks your big toe.
You did it to yourself with solar 'action' stored in the food you eat.
I'll not argue semantics with you, it is pointless, but I'd suggest
potential energy (called energy) is what the gunpowder has, action
is what the cannonball in flight has and work is what it does when
it stops. Driving a nail is 'work', it requires 'energy' to make the
hammer 'act', it is constructive to the roof and destructive to the tree.
I will not accept that nothing has properties. Any you may think is has
are of your imagination, not mine.
Stars do not blow themselves to smithereens twice in three months
when it is quite clear to me (and Henri Wilson and Vladimir Sekerin)
that the illusion is caused by slow photons being passed by faster
photons emitted later.
Here is the empirical data:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Here is the explanation by Sekerin:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
Here is the explanation by me:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
Wilson knows, but he screwed up his programming.
So out goes Einstein, out goes Maxwell's or Lorentz's aether,
come back Newton. Sorry John Goodricke, you were too young
to know what you were doing so you are excused.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:36:43 GMT) it happened HW@..(Henri Wilson)
Bullshit.
Your primary reference was to me when it should have been to Androcles.
>
>
>
>>HW.
>Idiot
>Learn ho to use Usenet.
PD
GSS wrote:
> Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
> represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of the
> physical space or vacuum. For detailed presentation of this notion,
> kindly refer to,
>
> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html
>
> GSS
That's incorrect. The values they have are accidents of the choice of
units.
With a suitable choice of units, those values become either 1 or some
multiple of pi that comes from geometric convenience. There is nothing
in those values that would suggest that the vacuum is a physical medium
for anything.
Remember that in suitable unit system, the speed of light is 1 and
dimensionless.
PD
Phineas T Puddleduck
<TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
PD
This is the same GSS who doesn't know what proper time or distance are.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
FrediFizzx
news:1150934759.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> GSS wrote:
> > Permittivity (eps_0) and Permeability (mu_0) Constants of Vacuum
> > represent fundamental characteristics or fundamental properties of
the
> > physical space or vacuum. For detailed presentation of this notion,
> > kindly refer to,
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html
> >
> > GSS
>
> That's incorrect. The values they have are accidents of the choice of
> units.
Actually not really an accident. More like "required" by the choice of
units.
> With a suitable choice of units, those values become either 1 or some
> multiple of pi that comes from geometric convenience. There is nothing
> in those values that would suggest that the vacuum is a physical
medium
> for anything.
Can you define "geometric convenience" for us? I wonder what might be
producing these "geometries". ;-) If we set eps0 to 1 we get something
that resembles Heaviside-Lorentz units. However with eps0 = 1, then
Coulomb's constant becomes 1/4pi. So we still have a "geometrical"
factor to deal with. Doesn't seem to be any way of getting rid of them.
Our Quantum Vacuum Charge concept smooths this all out (the geometrical
aspects) but does require a relativistic medium of an unusual nature.
It really is debatable as to whether or not the detection of a photon
can be considered to be detection of this medium. It is purely an
interpretational issue.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <k3ij92hrh3sppri1v...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:26:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:36:43 GMT) it happened HW@..(Henri Wilson)
>>wrote in <0otg92t7bn5au2hat...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>You have wrongly attributed this message to me.
>>>....please apologise or I'll sue.
>>
>>Oh go to hell.
>>I replied to a text in a posting that was in itself correctly prepended
>>with >>>>>
>
>Bullshit.
>Your primary reference was to me when it should have been to Androcles.
>
It was verbatim from your posting.
So either you were mentally absent when you quoted that >>> part, and
do not know the meaning of '>>>>>', or you DID know that it refers to OTHER
postings.
In the first case nothing goes, in the second case, that you were by your
senses and did know what you were doing, and that >>>>>> refers to OTHER
postings, you cannot complain if you are quoted referring to _such other
postings_
I went to google groups and entered:
'Henry Wilson sue'.
You seem to like to sue people, specially poor Androcles, who may not know
everything about everything, but I am sure neither do you or I.
So in that light, after checking with my legal team, it is considered
a possibility that you sue people for a living.
Like that lady that was hit so badly by cars hundreds of times, and got
big time money from all the drivers that never even saw her.
This is a mis-use of the legal system, in some places perhaps even punishable
by torture.
Will give you 10 years in the slammer.
One could then collect all victims, and look for some millions compensation
for sustained emotional damages, so it would be a work camp.
That is not all, I could have you extradited likely, but as I think you are
in the US (where else would they sue somebody for something said on Usenet),
I am gone leave you there, as I just did read a federal agent was shot by
prison guards who abused female prisoners for drugs.
If they do that to federal agents, then what do they do top prisoners.
So have the 10.
Bye!!!!!
GSS
PD, please be honest and tell me whether you have made the above
observations after reading my article or without reading it. I would
like to discuss it in detail with you only after you have done the
first reading. Of course you must be in a position to distinguish
between the terms 'dimensions' and 'units'.
GSS
ranger...@yahoo.com
Scumbag Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
<sorry, snipped>
No one reads your shit, scumbag.
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On a sunny day (Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:36:19 GMT) it happened HW@..(Henri Wilson)
>wrote in <k3ij92hrh3sppri1v...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:26:34 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:36:43 GMT) it happened HW@..(Henri Wilson)
>>>wrote in <0otg92t7bn5au2hat...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>You have wrongly attributed this message to me.
>>>>....please apologise or I'll sue.
>>>
>>>Oh go to hell.
>>>I replied to a text in a posting that was in itself correctly prepended
>>>with >>>>>
>>
>>Bullshit.
>>Your primary reference was to me when it should have been to Androcles.
>>
>
>It was verbatim from your posting.
>So either you were mentally absent when you quoted that >>> part, and
>do not know the meaning of '>>>>>', or you DID know that it refers to OTHER
>postings.
This is he start of your posting:
"""""
On a sunny day (Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:49:05 GMT) it happened HW@..(Henri Wilson)
wrote in <7ege929lfmngovvfu...@4ax.com>:
>>> Never mind the value, define what you mean by "impedance
>>> of nothing", Potter.
>>>
>>> | 5. The z from cathode to anode is NOT zero.
Indeed
>>> You don't seem to know the difference between AC and DC, Potter.
>>> The effective resistance, known as impedance, is found from
>>> Ohms's law R = E/I, Potter, and for a capacitor is frequency dependent.
>>> A DC circuit as in a TV tube has a frequency of zero, Potter.
>>> It's a short circuit, Potter, not a 377 ohm resistor.
Total and utterly bulshit.
A normal CRT (color) has 3 electron guns, with each about .5 mA (500 ua)
max current (normal operation), so a total of 1.5mA electron current to the
high voltage connection from the cathode*S*.
The high voltage is 25kV, so the impedance seen would be 25000 / .0015 =
16 666 666 Ohm, or 16 MOhm. (mega ohm).
etc.
"""""""""""""
None of the quoted lines were mine.
>
>In the first case nothing goes, in the second case, that you were by your
>senses and did know what you were doing, and that >>>>>> refers to OTHER
>postings, you cannot complain if you are quoted referring to _such other
>postings_
>
>I went to google groups and entered:
>'Henry Wilson sue'.
>
>You seem to like to sue people, specially poor Androcles, who may not know
>everything about everything, but I am sure neither do you or I.
Yes. Androcles owes me several bottles of wine.
I have never threatened to sue anyone else.
But OK, I have decided not to sue this time because you are not really a
diehard member of the SRian baboon brigade.