studiot

So far as I can tell no one here thinks you are a flat earther and noone has been mean to you, their replies seem to me to be quite helpful. I only introduced flat earth because actual flat patches on a planet's surface can and do occur and have geological significance, indeed there are several terms in geology reflecting this. Peneplain, plain, planation etc. I'm sorry if my comments confused you. However your discussion so far seems very nebulous so that I am unclear about where it is meant to be heading. What do you actually hope to do with the information ?

Thanks +1

Thanks for your input. +1. I thought he has stated that twice, but even once is not good when you are dissing other people, especially as the video was not properly checked (ie hurried). I will come back with my full list but, He seems to imply that photon scattering only happens off the nucleus. In fact My highlighting.

I'm glad to see you are working at least some of this out for yourself. So much more satisfying that way. Here are a couple of practical facts or 'rules of thumb' for you. Cartographers and surveyors work in the '10k flat earth principle.' That is, you can treat the earth as flat and the grid as rectangular, and trigonometric calculations as plane trigonometry within a region about 10 kilometres across. Talking of flat earth we had a flat earth nutcase here who was trying to prove the earth is flat by surveying Lake Balaton in Hungary. He did not succeed, but the discussion did uncover some interesting geological facts about the alke Baloton region and also more generally, because glaciers creat flat bottomed valleys.

Robert Mills ( of Yang-Mills fame) writes very persuasively about this and many other things in his first year university level book. He has a very clear way of putting many concepts.

Nice pictures. Can I respectfully suggest you do some thinking for yourself here. You should be quite capable of ansering these questions yourself. First just check up on the difference between a level surface and a flat surface.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64603521

100,000 feet up is 19 miles up ? Edit Xposted with swansont.

iNow already answered that Although the US has watched such incursions before, I further suggest this time presents new information because of Ukraine. China and Russia have become very pally recently.

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.