|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 14:59:00 GMT 1
STA,
A perfect vacuum in a tube will still support a magnetic field..
And what have you to say to Maxwell's
C = root (1/permeability of free space x permittivity of free space)
And as we know, the permeability of free space has a definite value ...
So sorry, STA .... no cigar. I prefer Maxwell's explanation.
(And DO bone up on Raman scattering in an anisotropic medium.)
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 17, 2011 15:28:01 GMT 1
Which is a consequence of our system of units!
DO read my earlier posts before you spout more utter garbage!
I've said nothing to disagree with Maxwell, other than you obviously don't understand the first thing about it.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks, that's all you have some out with from start to finish. Even worse than abacus, and that's saying something..................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 17:25:55 GMT 1
STA
I despair of your obtuseness. IF the permeability of free space is an artefact of 'our units' aka the mathematics, .. then it surely can = 0. And where are you then?
But you have, old bean!
Maxwell reckoned there was an 'aether' through which EM waves travelled. And unlike wave modes in media such as gas, liquid or solid, he conceived of orthogonal transverse or shear waves in a double electrical and magnetic medium.
So as with the speed of sound in a medium, in this electro-magnetic double medium he found a means of expressing the limiting propagation speed thus; C = root (1/permeability of free space x permittivity of free space)
And as we know, the permeability of free space has a definite value ...
So, we CAN conceive of areas of space where this permeability is diffferent, which will affect the local speed of light ....
( For example, what effect do ionised particles have on radio waves?)
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 17, 2011 20:46:18 GMT 1
Nope. Any idiot knows that a non-zero value can't be reduced to a zero value JUST by changing units.
You can't make the speed of light zero (or infinity), just by changing units. You can though make it one if you choose the units that physicists use, since everything exciting that happens in relativity always contains the ratio between your speed and light speed.
Similarly in optics, baseline is always what happens in a vacuum, and properties of materials always described, in effect, with relation to that.
Well, If he did, then we all disagree with him, since we failed to detect it................
ONLY within a certain system of units. Change your measurement system, changes the value.
Yes, we can conceive of permeability being DIFFERENT, but that doesn't remove vacuum from its unique position of being the baseline withn which everything else is compared. Hence, by definition, we can't have something which is MORE empty than a vacuum.
When it comes to Maxwells contribution, the actual importance was that em fields , which according to Maxwell could propogate (whatever that medium was thought to be at the time), propogated at a speed (based on permitivitty and permeability which were measurable) that looked uncannily close to the speed of light. AS he said:
Reasonable at the time to assign em waves to waves in some medium, but turned out not to be the case.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 17, 2011 20:55:12 GMT 1
Actually I take that as a bit of a compliment because I must challenge your world view so profoundly that you take the trouble to single me out.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 17, 2011 22:03:48 GMT 1
STA, as I have said before ... a vacuum still supports a magnetic field! So, space per-se can never be 'empty' because it certainly supports gravitational and magnetic pulls.. as well as amazing quantities fo EM waves/photons whizzing back adn forth at all angles.
But we know that over galactic distances, EM waves will encounter enormous amounts of matter; quite a bit of it ionised, as well as countless gravity and magnetic fields.
So by comparison, experiments over relatively miniscule distances aren't sufficiently convincing.
(Then, we have the Sagnac effect .....)
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 17, 2011 22:22:35 GMT 1
Same ole nonsense, because you are STUCK in the rut that a magnetic field NEEDS supporting in the first place!
Although your technical language seems to have slipped worse than usual, with this reference to pulls............
No it doesn't, but those waves that do encounter too much stuff don't get here. You can't see through a rock you know (even if you are about as dense as one, although maybe that should be neutronium.............).
Same ole same ole, you keep trying to reason about complicated stuff when you can't even get the simple stuff (like what happens to sound waves) correct. A total waste of time.
Of course the physics looks weird and confusing, but that is because of the position you are trying to view it from, not the physics itself.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 18, 2011 0:41:45 GMT 1
Same ole nonsense, because you are STUCK in the rut that a magnetic field NEEDS supporting in the first place! Although your technical language seems to have slipped worse than usual, with this reference to pulls............ No it doesn't, but those waves that do encounter too much stuff don't get here. You can't see through a rock you know (even if you are about as dense as one, although maybe that should be neutronium.............). Same ole same ole, you keep trying to reason about complicated stuff when you can't even get the simple stuff (like what happens to sound waves) correct. A total waste of time. Of course the physics looks weird and confusing, but that is because of the position you are trying to view it from, not the physics itself. Same old incomprehensible stuff from someone who hasn't even mastered the English language, let alone scientific concepts. How in the world did you manage to obtain a degree (if you did). STA, tell me, what kind of perverted pleasure do you get from being a punch bag?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 18, 2011 3:56:44 GMT 1
Ah well, you have mistakenly assumed that any of your feeble punches actually make contact.
I might ask you what perverted pleasure you get from trying to spread misinformation and misunderstandings about science (not the use of the word TRYING). Is it just that ignorance loves company?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 18, 2011 15:32:38 GMT 1
Ah well, you have mistakenly assumed that any of your feeble punches actually make contact. I might ask you what perverted pleasure you get from trying to spread misinformation and misunderstandings about science (not the use of the word TRYING). Is it just that ignorance loves company? Well, I thought your role was to stop the spreading of misinformation but you are not accomplishing it because nobody has much of a clue what you are on about most of the time. That's not my fault.
|
|