On Nov 4, 10:51*am, Art Unwin wrote:


Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a
wave is made clear.
Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the
atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles
unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the
atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity
flight.

I hope it is a good flight. Of course, with the recent economic
downturn, I imagine in-flight meals are out.
I heard they now offer a cup of water and a fig neutrino.







As far as doing all the work for me the work has all been done and
each assertion is backed up by existing modern practices such that no
more proof is required.

Well, then WTF are you doing here whining about it?
Art, you are just plain full of crap. If the work had been done,
you would be offering it as evidence.
But all you do is hand wave various levels of bafflegab.

If people want to ignore science let them
believe that the World is flat but I can't expect the like of Mark to
follow such a trail as he readily admits
to not completing high school or for that matter people who consider
that all education has been completed and thus all is known,.

Well, it's obvious that your education has led you astray.
You can't spell worth a crap, your ideas about science
border on lunacy. And to top it off, you probably voted for
Obama.
And you want to whine about my level of education?
I'm sure this is news to you, but they don't offer antenna
theory in high school. So it wouldn't make a rats ass
if I finished high school or not. I would still have to study
antenna theory either at a later school, or on my own.
I choose to do such study on my own time.

My home schooling appears to be superior to your
version, being I spell slightly better than you do, and
when I talk about antenna theory, people don't constantly
jump down my back telling me I'm insane.
I'm not even corrected very often, and I'm sure they would
if I was off in outer space as far as theory or even
details of whatever antenna talk I enter into.
A fairly nit picky bunch you have around here.
They don't suffer fools very well.

On the other hand, you can't make one post without
causing extreme controversy.
Your idea of science is to conjure up various degrees
of bafflegab, and then blame everyone else for not doing
your "work" when the controversy starts up.

Fortunately many hams are continueing to experiment in search of the
holy grail where others wish to continue as just talking heads.

What is a holy grail antenna? I know what a talking head is.
I see them on the tube every day.
On the other hand, all I see you do is talk out your ass.
A talking ass. Kind of reminds me of Mr. Ed, with a
twist.

Termnans definition quoted above is not definitive with respect to
radiation in any way and it is well recognised that radiation is not
known in all its aspects.

Oh, and you are the one to set us all straight I presume...
Chortle...

What is known is that there are four fources involved all of which are
accounted for in Maxwell's mathematics but not fully explained in a
scientific account
and that includes the so called definition that Terman put forward in
the absense of fuul knoweledge of radiation.

Art, I've got news for you. Terman probably forgot more about
radiation than you know in totality. I think Richards book was
printed in about 1955, and it's still fairly relevant.
You on the other hand... :/

Regards
Art

Regards, the ignorant dumbass.