On May 29, 1:28*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 28, 7:17*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On May 28, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 28, 8:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Now just hold on right there!
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun as described by a particle.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, you are missing a basic point about physics.
Classical physics is seen as factual. All other theorems are
replacement attempts to explain paradoxies provided by classical
physics. When ever one reads the duality theorem it is exactly that, a
theorem which many say is a myth that is being perpetuated, but even
so they declare the wave as a function purely because of mathematical
reasons that the wave function has the same mathematics that can be
traced back to those *provided by a particle.
Even so, classical physics holds the major spot in physics where all
other theorems are attempts to topple its position as a collection or
laws or facts.
Maxwell's equations *as are equations by Gauss,
Faraday are today considered to be facts that have yet to be
overturned. Tho I call my work a theorem I can just as easily call
them a series of facts which are still accepted to this day. My
findings only uses facts. Classical physics has yet to be dethroned.
The masters were very smart people who were very careful with words
and interpretations of the visibles whereas even today the double
split experiment is torn with missinterpretations in continuation of a
unproven theory
None of the accepted facts that I have used mention the term of waves
and since these laws are part of classical physics I hold to them.
There has not been any theorem that has been expanded to the status of
a law such that classical
physics has been displaced. I am using only what Einstein failed to
locate that which he needed to
further his leanings towards the Standard Model and it was only this
failure that provided a reason to
look for different viewpoints.
If you have reason to displace the legitamacy of Classical Physics as
used by me *then state them.
What I have used is short and to the point so I am not presenting a
hardship to whome I consider as a qualified engineer
My best regards
Art

classical physics has been well dethroned by both relativity at the
high velocity end and quantum mechanics at the small side of the
scale. *classical physics does good at 'every day' speeds and for
macroscopic things... the types of things that newton and his
contemporaries would have been able to experiment with. *they could
not have known or measured things at very high energies as seen at
relativistic speeds, nor could they have measured things at subatomic
levels where the 'classical' laws break down.

K1RRR@ARRL posting response by Art Unwin

Are you saying that the laws of Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Gauss is
now defunct? What should I have used in their place if they were no
good in the areas that I worked with?
Why on earth did NEC work around the equations
of Maxwell when they had been toppled? I used Newton,Faraday,Maxwell
and Gauss's laws only.
Who and what has replaced them in the areas where I mistakenly used
them. Did Ohms laws
survive this onslaught and who got the award from Oslo? I would like
to have another stab at my work
using the data that has replaced them, so I could do with some
guidance from you so my work is not wasted again. Do you know what the
replacement antenna computer programs will be based upon and are any
presently available on the market?
Thanks for the update. Why not share what you have with QST so your
fellow hams may benefit
from the up to dated textbooks now supplied to the new generation in
Universities. I heard that Texas
is redoing all the school textbooks but I didn't realize that
education had taken such a radical change. And of course as science is
changed in Texas so goes the whole Country. On another thought, will
degrees obtained before this update be grandfathered in?
My very best regards
Art Unwin

fortunately maxwell's equations work just fine for macroscopic stuff
like hams use, so you are still ok with those. when someone writes an
antenna program that uses qed you might want to upgrade though. and
newton still works for most cases you will ever run into, though it
would fail to explain some effects if you carried an atomic clock on a
high speed jet or tried to orbit your own satellite. Ohm's law is
still fine for anything you will do also, unless you really tried to
get into superconductive antennas, then you might have some problems.