Mac Rynkiewicz from Australia, who has been exploring the problem of the existence of aether, and recommended to me to read papers by Vladimir Demjanov, a Russian physicist from Novorrossisk, has posed the following interesting questions:
(1) How exactly does an E by H slab (or em radiation or photons or photaenos) manage to follow say copper, including bends etc.
(2) How exactly does a change in impedance (or a termination) give partial (or full) reflexion.
(3) How is a good conductor a good obstructor? (there is a contradiction deep inside that, especially re heat losses).
Here is my answer sent to Mac today:
My view:
Imagine a messy fall of water – like rain falling in all directions (something like we see around Niagara Falls). That’s energy current ExH. The drops of rain can happily move where they can easily penetrate. In EM terms this means very low epsilon and mu. If you put some relatively porous material (i.e. epsilon still being lowish but not very low) around, the drops will still relatively easily penetrate but partly reflect back. Imagine you put a gutter made of hard water proof material (i.e. very high epsilon). Drops will start concentrating near and along the gutter because they can’t penetrate the gutter’s material. Most likely the density of rain around the gutter will be much higher than further away from the gutter.
Let’s now turn to Mac’s questions:
1) How exactly does an E by H slab (or em radiation or photons or photaenos) manage to follow say copper, including bends etc.
In the view of the above model, ExH slab will follow copper as its impenetrable gutter.
(2) How exactly does a change in impedance (or a termination) give partial (or full) reflexion.
In the view of the above model, change in impedance will give partial or full reflection. Low impedance means high epsilon and no penetration but following the gutter. Termination (high impedance) means no more good gutter to follow, hard to disperse near the terminator, reflect the energy stream back and inscrease pressure on the gutter (e.g. higher E). If the impedance is low (higher epsilon), part of the stream is reflected part is guttered.
(3) How is a good conductor a good obstructor? (there is a contradiction deep inside that, especially re heat losses).
In the view of the above model, we should actually “reverse” (cf. “We reverse this …” as per Heaviside) the terminology when we move from electric current to energy current. From the energy current point of view we must call highly permitting material (high epsilon) low permitting material (like copper). Sponge is should have higher permittivity than copper. Copper is a gutter. Every time part of the rain that hits the gutter it loses energy. When it hits the sponge it still penetrates.
What we have in EM now is a mess. Everything is defined from the point of view of imaginary ‘electric current’ being seen as a promoter of energy propagation. The notion of materials with respect to their names like permittivity is made to serve the imaginary world rather than material world.
So, you are quite right: here is a contradiction deep inside that