On Apr 30, 9:22*pm, tom wrote:
It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
* * *This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

You are really good, Art. *How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. *Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. *How do you continue to
make almost no sense? *That's really tough. *I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
In other words I can act on a full picture made of jigsaw parts but
not a partial picture. Therefore one must deal with fully melded and
interacting parts that are consistant to reality. Thus I adhere to
classical physics and factual observances or laws without straying
from the path I have chosen from interconnecting parts.
Quantum theory is based on probabilities and associated math. Any body
who has been to the race track knows that this form of thinking has
its fallacies thus probabilities has moved towards string theory. I
stick to classical physics as they have a history of success with the
laws that they have established but unfortunately physicists have
corrupted the language of observances. For instance we had a
discussion on Leptons, colour etc. Physicists recognise that colour as
the rest of the world knows it as a means of separation of its
observed actions instead of labelling it lepton1 or lepton 2.Same goes
for hadrons, they actually could be a single type particle but
physicists label them by the action that they exhibit on observance.
Why do you think that the idea of a mad scientist hangs on to this
day. They did similar things with respect to waves which in their
world has nothing to do with water, tides e.t.c.
So for me there is merit in sticking to points raised by classical
physics since they are tried and true
under examination and have not exploded by categerizing particles by a
particular observation.
After all, both a dog and a cat have a tail they can wag but the real
world can have the same observation of different entitiesand vica
versa.
What I desire the most is for somebody to challenge my statements
based on documented observations and laws bearing in mind that the
written word comes after factual examination and not before.As yet
nobody has pointed out a fallacy that is in conflict with presently
known laws, and I mean nobody. If there is a conflict then I will
discard all. But remember, I do not make computer programs on
radiators but they all confirm the presence of particles and
equilibrium and I have had no way of manipulating that to conform to
my thinking. They show that maximum radiation is obtained when
material resistance drops to zero and radiation rises to a maximum via
current flow outside the member to elevate particles at rest on the
surface. I couldn't possibly string some thing like that as a joke or
by not taking my medicine.