On Jan 6, 12:22*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

Reading the above means nothing, you have to understand it
However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).
Keep trying you should be able to master it



snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.
O yes I do, I read your postings in the archives to understand what
level you are.

snip rambling

If you want to know why your rambling nonsense is rambling nonsense, read
an elementry electromagnetic text such as "Electromagnetics" by Kraus
and Carver.
You mention Kraus who spent a lot of time messing with radiators that
were not in equilibrium. He was bound to the idea of waves that
cancel, where if he had considered particles his helix radiators would
be in the form of a closed circuit such as a ribbon line where
particle vectors are additive. His work on helix antennas are so
incomplete
since he does not account for all forces involved for radiation.
Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where provision is made
for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. Think about it in terms of boundary laws that
abide with the laws of Newton in every aspect. Model a ribbon helix
in equilibrium or a simple helix antenna of Krauss and compare which
is the best for yourself instead of being just a follower. Look up
Faraday shields on the web and determine how electric fields and
magnetic fields are cancelled thus leaving just a time vary current
that your receiver can use. Think about how you can accellerate a
charge when it is just a field without mass and acts as a wave Use
your brain if you have one.
Your quotation of Maxwells laws does not impress me one bit as you
obviously do not know how to use it because of the lack of
understanding.




Yeah, I know, hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the subject
for over a hundred years are all wrong while you have the "Truth" in
magic bouncing particles.

No, not all, a Iot is very much disputed outside this group

No, it is not my truths! It is those of the masters which are now
largely ignored by computer operators and the present day crop of
physicists
who now rely on probability mathematics as the proof of the truth.
And why do you think that Feyman described duality as a"strange
theory" which is based solely on the incorrect analysis of an
experiment that does not jive with those of the Masters?
Frankly, you are not much of a judge with respect to physics.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---