studiot

Take a pen and paper and note them down as you go through. I noted several: we can compare notes when you have done.

Did you notice any faults ? Perhaps the one at 5:34 where the Dr Lincoln says that "Photons absorb atoms"

If Lincoln genuinely said that then the video is best forgotten. Now to horse to horse. @Boltzmannbrain I am going to offer you a wave explanation, though the principles that come out of it apply to any level, including quantum. So first what is a travelling wave ? A wave is described by an equation connecting time and space. In order to make this equation dimensionally corrrect (all terms in the same units) it must include a factor we call the velocity or speed. The basic equation is a differential equation which is satisfied by an infinity of ordinary equations , also called wave equations. All these equations must include the units factor I mentioned. These waves have certain charracteristics or requirements. Before a wave can travel it must be generated. Seems obvious, but the equations themselves do not tell us how this is achieved. The velocity of a wave is characteristic of the medium, not the wave. If a wave has material moving elements or particles the speed of these is not the same as the speed of the wave. In the light of 2 it is not suprising that a wave travels at different speed in different media. So let us consider a sound travelling through several media, air then a solid partition (say a pane of glass or sheet of wood), then back to air again. Very simple but it will do the job. In the air the sound wave is made by the particles alternately bunching together (thus increasing the pressure and density locally) and spreading apart (thus decreasing the pressure and density locally). Note that these air particles are free to move about. They are not linked to other particles directly by forces. When the wave arrives at the left hand partition surface this alternating pressure increase and decrease causes alternating displacements of the surface particles. Note these partition particles are connected to neighbouring particles by springlike forces as in my original diagrams. This pattern of alternating displacements is thus transmitted onwards through the partition to its right hand surface, where the reverse occurs and the motion is returned to the air the other side. Now these two modes of tranmission are fundamentally different by virtues of their different mechanisms. But there is only ever one sound wave in either medium. This process can be likened to handing on the baton in a relay, each runner operating in a manner appropriate to him or her. The baton is the wave energy. A travelling wave transmits energy and the mechanism of travel will, unsuprisingly, vary from medium to medium. So sound is not light, but they are both waves. The mechanisms are different but the above applies. That brings us to the level of mechanism you wish to study the phenomenon for light ?

The op claims to be new Has anyone else the feeling of deja vu ? I'm sure i've seen this junk before and I can't thik where else I might have seen it. Does anyone else remember such a post ?

Yes I too like least action but by itself that does not provide the mechanism. +1 Your 'lattice field energy' appears in a simpler guise which I explore below. I rarely try to explain the videos of others, and like joigus I didn't watch this one. But I try to relate your idea of forced oscillation to Seth's lattice field below. This too is a good one, so long as you are not trying to imply that there are two waves transmitted in the medium travelling at different speeds. +1 also Yes I agree it is difficult to provide a simple intuitive explanation but I think I can now offer one using my sound analogy as below. You can also classically make this as complicated as you wish. Joos (Theoretical Physics) takes four chapters to develop it from simple vector calculus to tensor calculus for the anisotropic case where ε is a tensor complete with components and principal direction, dependent upon position in the non-homogenous case. My first pages above were from The 1966 MIT series "The Structure and Properties of Material - volume IV - Electronic Properties" byRose, Shepard and Wulff The second pages were from Vibrations and Waves in Physics by Iain G Main Cambridge University Press. (My copy 1979)

Sorry for the spellung mistake. No offence meant. I had in mind "possibly the Forest of Dean" but never mind the other side ok. The last time I visited the Stonehouse asrea I had little or no signalin and around Hetti Peglar's Tump or around the Cotswold edge below the momument. Indeed the edge country Broadway right the way down to Thornbury is littered with mobile blind spots. But thanks for the info.

Doesn't this violate both the first and second laws of this forum ?

Here is a more mathematical classical treatment. Things to take away. Coherence/incoherence v superposition scattering dispersion Real and displacement currents

Not really. exchemist said distorted not combined or speeded up. Read these two extracts.

I'm sorry @Genady I was called away in the middle of responding to joigus, to whom my question "why" was addressed. You seem to have slipped in with a post between posts in our earlier conversation. Anyway I have the time now to explain more so here we go Firstly let us note that gravitational forces (the original question) always draw matter particles together and that sometimes they are aided by other processes (not necessarily forces) as already discussed. Set against this, electric charge can either act to draw particles together or spread them apart, depending upon polarity. Also if a particle is charged it has an excess of one charge over the other. So this excess charge will alway be repulsive with charges of the same polarity. This means that, unlike gravity, charges of the same polarity will never form an accretion process, drawing more and more such particles together. So the question arises "What happens when a neutral body of many particles becomes charged " Well that depends on the shape of that body before it became charged. The girl's hair forms a perfect example of this. The hair does not form a sphere with the charge spread over its surface but forms that spiky shape with repulsive forces on each hair balancing out in some respect. Micelles and other accretion bodies such as chelates in solution work like this. Yet another possibility are the balanced zwitterions. hope this helps

That didn't answer my question. It's a lot more complicated than that

Why ? Other charged structures are possible as with the girl's hair in the picture or these large 'molecules' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micelle

I think Dim's 250m garden is somewhere in rural Glouscestershire. I also think that, like rural Somerset, mobile phone signal is very patchy indeed. In fact if you live on either coast of the peninsular, which is heavily dissected, signal is non existent in lots of inhabited places, and the residents there have to get up on the adjacent hills to use one., Take for example, Brendon or Branscome in Devon, Lyme in Dorset , Kilve in Somerset or Portwen in Cornwall.

Thank you for admitting that a Carnot Engine is the most efficient conceivable.

Not only the incoming EM radiation, but also the varying transient fields from other molecules as in VDW forces.

I offered those earlier, but we don't know if Dim is wired for mains. Also it may not be as easy as that as through the mains has to be on the same mains subcircuit. I used to keep a bunch of these and say to farmers, the only way to see if it works in your barn, cowshed etc is to try it and see. If I plug these in and they work, it is the easiest and cheapest way, otherwise we can do something else. But you don't have to buy them, just use my test modules. Someimes it would would sweetly, sometimes it would stubbornly refues to jump from one subcircuit to another.

This would be a good course textbook for you. The Foundations of Mathematics Paperback (2015) Stewart and Tall.

Glad you are thinking and weighing the issues before acting. A small switch is advisable in my opinion for the reasons, iNow and i have already mentioned. You might want to put your feet up sometimes and watch streaming media. Or you might want to watch a secuitry/bird/whatever cam if you put a plug on the end of your 100m cable and the signal is not strong enough it is pluggable s can be addd later. There are lots of 100m cables ready assembled available. My reel was for 300+ metres. Perhaps, but I did ask if you are using a genny or stable power cable from the house. Powering even your PC from a genny can lead to more difficulties than just loosing power - it can actually damage the PC, more so than other equipment because of the hard drive. For a genny I would recommend some sort of UPS (uninterruptible power supply). Finally much if not all of this kit can be had even more cheaply second hand. As regards ethernet, originally it started at 1Mbit then moved up to 10 then 100 then 1000 (gigabit). Most existing networks are of the 100 variety which is satisfactory for HD video and faster than Wifi (though not 2 Wifi channels together) So if you go the s/h route get 100Mbit kit.

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/16405 Whenever EM radiation passes through a region of space containing matter there are transient (eg Van der Waals) and permanent electric fields present due to the matter. The strength and nature of these fields depends upon the type and distribution of the matter - solid, liquid, gas, solution etc. Macro observed effects are dispersion, absorbtion, scattering. The velocity depends upon the permittivity of the bulk material, and permeability in ferrofluids. Matter and the space it occupies is mostly empty, which is why some light passes through at all.

Yes indeed, yet you have never actively discussed that topic. Just added a few sentences here and there pouring scorn on the idea. Just as you poured scorn on my diagram. So let me ask you this. Suppose you actually had a perfect Carnot engine and and a second engine that was more efficient that the Carnot one. What would happen if you thermally connected both engines between the same pair of heat sinks with the more efficient one generating a mechanical work output from the available heat. But with the Carnot engine reversed (remember that the fundamental principle of a Carnot engine is that it is fully reversible) so that work generated by the efficient engine was used to drive the reversed Carnot engine to move heat from the cold sink to the hot sink ?

I think we should all be fair to Willem. Both Hungarian and German have abstract nouns in common with English. But they also have a common opacity as to whether to consider an abstract noun as 'something' or not.

This extender will just plug straight into your existing router. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/173919330648?hash=item287e666158:g:6p0AAOSwrEJc8STP&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoAcaFsJHFMaFuitGRQAHOJ4U9srulyV2VDbOi%2FNHjp7CclMFWGSH5pG%2B9VmvpMzliSrs74XKUaiSpYlu3nC8CFVb%2Fb9IcHhhArl%2FV9P2ldI9NsE79psc0INwQhLtTXeIAznksBep5%2FoYv4Wq4UAmG%2B8a2BUb5Sy8tJwJnqCXDKJK0P8R0h432MNiJy1QjzrqZ9vxG%2BSLscWWrfKuFWYLNpw%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR7jBoo_GYQ

√ You will also find protons colliding here https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/spec-services/highly-spec-services/pbt/

Isn't that what LHRC does ?

I see no mention of 'offsets' in Einstein's theory, can you reference it ? However I would ask why you would not expect them to be different? They two beams follow different trajectories through any observers spacetime. Just saying they are different (as everyone agrees) does not make it a conundrum, contradiction or paradox. You need to establish a connection between the two beams which when applied leads to a contradiction. It is your claim not mine, so it is up tp you to work it out. I asked several times for your step by step reasoning, preferably with the maths spelled out. I have checked the very small amount of maths you have done and posted where I agreed.