Remember, I'm not defending the theory, merely reporting it. But in the theory's defense, the curve on the graph of light speed versus gas density is exponential: the difference between one atmosphere and outer space is still on the essentially flat part of the curve. It doesn't start to rise significantly until the vacuum becomes a thousand to ten thousand times more rarefied than what we know interplanetary space to be. The scientists who like this theory believe the necessary vacuums for higher speed exist BETWEEN galaxies, but not within galaxies. You probably assumed a linear relationship between gas density (or, less accurately, vacuum intensity) and light speed. That's not how the theory works. The mechanism posited for the relationship would require the exponential curve (which is interesting, although it proves nothing in itself because that doesn't mean the model is physically correct). We don't have the means to create vacuums that could put this theory to the test at this point in time. Every vacuum man has made is filled with material (starting with the world's first man-made vacuum, which was contaminated with mercury vapor).
Martin On Feb 26, 2007, at 4:20 AM, philip madsen wrote:
"....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.)MartinFYI, 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 strengthThe 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 PMNo 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
Martin G. Selbrede Chief Scientist Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc. 8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100 The Woodlands, TX 77381281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599 fax (512) 422-4919 cell
mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx
