"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I want to share with you one problem that I have on the above subject
When placing a yagi in free space the computor programs supply a gain
figure
where according to my thinking the root cause for ejection is the
intersection of two magnetic field.How this happens with a yagi is a
matter of conjecture. Any pointers?
Performing the same with an arrangement in equilibhrium there is no
gravity and yet gain is shown. This leads to four posabilities

4 The concept of initial reliance on equilibrium as preached by the
masters is incorrect and my reasoning is in error

HOORAY! He finally got the right answer!!!


Sounds like a Scientology test to me

JB wrote:
Why must there be an "it" through which TEM waves proagate? Why cannot
they propagate through nothingness?

Nothingness that contains something is not nothing,
i.e. is an obvious logical contradiction. Every cubic
meter of the universe contains energy. Therefore,
nothingness cannot exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

JB wrote:
So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass
jar it then contains space?

Casimir effect experiments have been run in
a vacuum and proved there is lots of "stuff"
still there even in empty space. There is
no such thing as nothingness, at least not
within the space of our universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

JB wrote:
So if nothing is there, it aint nothing after all?

There is no "there" within the space of our universe
where nothing is there. Casimir effect experiments
have been run on spaces where nothing is supposed to
be. But instead of nothing, they found the quantum soup
which is the space occupied by our universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Maybe "absence of anything even resembling a structure"
would be a better way to put it. It's pretty clear that
if there is no structure for space, then space cannot
exist. Absolute nothing would necessarily be the absence
of any and every *thing* including space.

Well, yeah, that would pretty much be my call. Its' just a bit to
"swallow." And, add to that the fact, we have never seen "nothing", but
then probably never will ... LOL

I have been attempting to locate my exact old school physics text(s),
have had no luck. But, if I remember correctly, my books only mentioned
Einsteins first claim, that the structure/ether of space does not exist.
Indeed, if I am remembering correctly, they lumped structure/ether
together with alchemists, charlatans, magic, witches, etc. ...

Somewhere, later in college, I am suspecting, Einstein, this time
reneging on that claim, was quoted again, this time allowing for the
structure/ether:

Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the
University of Leyden.

" ...
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of
relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence
of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion
to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical
characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that
this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour
to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified
by the results of the general theory of relativity.
.... "

His implication in the words, " ... we must by abstraction take from it
the last mechanical characteristic ... ", implies the ether will,
almost, be as difficult to "view" as "nothing." 8-)

LET ME POINT OUT, Einstein was NOT too intimidated to use that ugly
word, "ether." ;-) This is supposed to be the exact text, translated,
from his presentation. If someone knows of another which differs,
please let me know ...

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:

...
Static particles? Does he mean statically charged particles? They don't
radiate, they are attracted to opposite charged matter. But then there is
ionization of a substance.


I don't know why that should be so difficult to ponder ... in the post
to Cecil, above, note that Einstein takes "all" mechanical structure
from the ether (but, I think Cecil is still correct--some "other" type
of structure IS there.)

However, with "entangled particles", no "real" movement is necessary,
one particle "imparts" its' behavior to another, that one to another and
on and on ... why they preform this "dance" in our perceived form of a
wave, or sine-wave even--I cannot fathom nor suggest a reason for ...
but then, maybe something else is really happening ... their are
theories which deal with this all ... the "particle dance" is/are just
my thoughts on what "seems" to be occurring and "envisioned" from others
works ... what space "really" is composed of ???, Art seems to suggest
looking at the CERN project, I don't think we have a choice--if we wish
to proceed in this quest ...

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:

...
But if nothingness is something (because it has a name) then you can
propagate through it because even nothingness is something so that can be
our "media". In fact it must be the perfect medium because it has a
velocity factor of 1.


JB:

Please, just consider these few words, "You can't 'see' nothing! You
can't go 'through nothing' (or, go to nothing)."

I know, it is too simple, one wonders how he missed the concept--nothing
is just what it means--nothing!

You are "seeing something" when you look at space (and, I know, it IS
hard to swallow--"time" brings ones' thinking into line on this, or, it
worked for me ... )

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:

...
So you are trying to tell me that if I completely evacuate a sealed glass
jar it then contains space? That's like saying the absence of light is
darkness. True as a conceptual description of nothingness. If you choose
to rename nothingness, does that mean it aint nothin? You guys have too
much time on your hands.


Yes, exactly. As hard to believe as it is, once you evacuate that jar,
the structure of Cecils' and my ether still "drifts" in and out of that
jar like it does not even exist! (the jar that is)

And don't complain to me about that being "impossible", I already said
that and claimed that--long ago ... ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

JB wrote:

...
Since we need leaps of faith to bridge the gaps in our theories, lets make
it frog's leg soup.


You remind me of myself when first grappling with these concepts.

I am going to love it when you have your first revelation, your first
epiphany ... HEHEHEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Regards,
JS :-)

On Sep 17, 9:58*am, "JB" wrote:
That was what I got out of it ... but then, I focused on Arts'
observation, "One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles
cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux ... "

Static particles? * Does he mean statically charged particles? *They don't
radiate, they are attracted to opposite charged matter. *But then there is
ionization of a substance.

JB
If I called those particles Neutrinos all hell would break out again
as in the past
I am refering to the Gaussian law of statics without comment of how I
could see
things differently from Gauss. Some would like to state them with
reference to charge
some another way. The medium that I take is static particles very
simple and understood by all
but then an opening for an auguement about a correction required.
Go figure
Art