[geocentrism] Re: more to reflect on 2.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:20:12 +1000
"....and that the finite speeds just under 300,000 km/s arise due to even
microscopic hydrogen contamination.
Seems unlikely to me when you compare the miniscule difference between the
velocity of EMR in space to that in the atmosphere, or under the sea for that
matter ..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Selbrede
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: more to reflect on 2.
I'd agree with distinguishing between hydrogen contamination and zero point
energy within the "vacuum" of space and the fact that "empty" space has a
density of 3.6 x !0E94 grams/cc.
That ultra-high density accounts for the nonlocality issues associated with
the Bell Inequalities (that modern quantum theory pitifully attempts to assign
to photon entanglement hypotheses that explain little to nothing of the
observed effects of the rhodamine laser experiments that establish superluminal
shifts in polarization -- when a photon-photon pair is created and the two
photons travel in opposing directions, the passing of the first through a
polarizer causes the instant polarization of the second, an effect propagated
at near-infinite speed. In actual fact, the speed is the speed of sound within
a material of the density mentioned earlier, the value given to the Planck
Density.)
Martin
FYI, some theorists think that the speed of light is infinite in a true
vacuum, and that the finite speeds just under 300,000 km/s arise due to even
microscopic hydrogen contamination. One has even created a graph linking the
microtorr values of a vacuum with the effective speed of light through it.
While I don't necessary agree with this approach, it has yet to be fully
written off and so should be reported in the interest of completeness.
On Feb 25, 2007, at 4:19 PM, philip madsen wrote:
Thanks Martin. I take it then that you support the contention that space is
not a vacuum.
However a vacuum is a vacuum, and the vacuum of space has never been
claimed as a perfect vacuum. In the '50s it was claimed that hydrogen permeated
the cosmos, the fuel of suns. Now Moon apparently talks of this space or vacuum
being made up of positron/electron pairs. I would prefer to call it just
another contamination (attenuator) like the hydrogen. There is still a space or
vacuum around and in between these electrons and positrons.
But this contamination in no way is likened to an aether that permeates ALL
space, including throughout the atoms of the material universe. I still opt for
a nonmaterial "contiguous" , aether .
Its condition is such that it can carry an electromagnetic wave. If we
ignore the attenuating losses of physical material including Moons positrons
etc, then it offers no resistance. If we can take a portion of space to avoid
the inverse square, and make it a perfect beam , a perfect transmission line,
(a fibre optic cable comes to mind) Then all of the energy input must output at
the reciever if the aether offers no resistance.
In this scenario, we are told that this energy inputting device "antenna"
looks at an impedance Z of 376 ohms. which would be all X or reactive.
(space stores electromagnetic energy in the form of waves and returns it --
without loss -- at the end of wave transmission or associated terminal events).
I found this enlightening, and helpful as I had never thought of it that
way. You are saying the wave propagation in "space" is reactive in the same
way that a co-ax transmission line is.
To me a "reactive component" returns the energy inputed, back to the
source. I preferred to look upon a transmission line and the space
transmission, as a carrier of energy rather than a storage of energy. Though I
guess a freighter does store its load for the duration of the trip. Thus it
was that you helped me to properly understand this.
The vacuum impedance, Z0 is a universal constant relating the magnitudes of
the electric and magnetic fields of electromagnetic radiation travelling
through free space.
where
E = electric field strength
H = magnetic field strength
The associated terminal events will now become more interesting, especially
Teslas standing wave..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Selbrede
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: more to reflect on 2.
On Feb 24, 2007, at 4:56 PM, philip madsen wrote:
but this raises a question,
"of Dr. Robert Moon, Chicago University physicist, who in his article
“Space Must Be Quantized,” shows that the prevailing theory that space is a
vacuum is not supported by the evidence. The reason? Because space has an
impedance of at least 376 ohms, something not predicted or accounted for in
conventional science"
My question is how is this 376 ohms measured? and from this how can
this measurement be distinguished for space, from the impedance of the
interface of the instrument?
radio antennaes present to the coax feeder an impedance which is called
the radiation resistance, but I always assumed it to be a characteristic of the
interface between the antenna element and space.
Can any one expand on this?
Phil,
I can expand a bit on this. I always laugh when I see anyone quoting Dr.
Robert Moon's article. If you trace the article back, you'll find that the
citation goes back to me. I happened to own a copy of the magazine in which
Moon's article was published, and I cited it in the early 1990s in connection
with its geocentric implications. When I see the citation cropping back up in
various uncredited guises, it strikes me as hilarious. All we see are the parts
I quoted, and nothing of the rest of the article. In the slide presentation for
my public lecture on geocentricity (still available on video), I even provide
the picture of Dr. Moon from his article.
The 376 ohms are reactive (space stores electromagnetic energy in the
form of waves and returns it -- without loss -- at the end of wave transmission
or associated terminal events). Moon goes into further detail about the
quantization of the impedance in regards to the Hall resistance and von
Klitzing's work (which earned von Klitzing a Nobel prize around 1985 for
showing the resistance to be quantized).
Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/699 - Release Date:
23/02/2007 1:26 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.4/702 - Release Date: 25/02/2007
3:16 PM
Other related posts:
