Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art



John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie



Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with.

However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is
first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to
explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has
always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their
basements with their goofy ideas ...

Still, an excellent and valid statement.

Warmest regards,
JS

art wrote:
Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art


Art:

We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations. However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you. But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...

Regards,
JS

On 23 Jan, 18:54, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:
Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
snip
We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations.


Why would you say that? Lets look at a rain drop accellerating towards
ground
until it comes to a sudden stop. Now look at this senario in terms of
the big picture
and we note that relatively speaking the droplet does not follow a
straight line relative
to a particular point on the face on the earth because of the earths
rotation.
So with the accellaration towards earth by gravity is a relative change
in time
it needs an accompanaying vector to qualify as curl which is supplied
by the
earths rotation. Thus I would contend that a droplet in free fall is
statically loaded
and provided with a time varying change at the same time. Thus the
noise I heard
with the antenna inside the car while in the rain forest was actually
something that
was transmitted as opposed to a static discharge on impact!. If you
read about space
transmissions you will note that they always place the word static
within " "..
Why do you think they do that? An answer to that would be very
interesting in
light of what I infere early in this post would it not?
Art


However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

Well the 377 represents ether the impedance in space or ether
the relative impedance in space. Ether way it works out O.K. and the
math
is made to prove it afrter the fact. it is ether that or something else
Art

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you.
I have a clone?


But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...
Did you try changing the angle of a vertical dipole
to obtain some observables?
How can you sleep?
Art

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

art wrote:


Why would you say that? Lets look at a rain drop accellerating towards
ground
until it comes to a sudden stop. Now look at this senario in terms of
the big picture
and we note that relatively speaking the droplet does not follow a
straight line relative
to a particular point on the face on the earth because of the earths
rotation.
So with the accellaration towards earth by gravity is a relative change
in time
it needs an accompanaying vector to qualify as curl which is supplied
by the
earths rotation. Thus I would contend that a droplet in free fall is
statically loaded
and provided with a time varying change at the same time. Thus the
noise I heard
with the antenna inside the car while in the rain forest was actually
something that
was transmitted as opposed to a static discharge on impact!. If you
read about space
transmissions you will note that they always place the word static
within " "..
Why do you think they do that? An answer to that would be very
interesting in
light of what I infere early in this post would it not?
Art

Art:

Take 1.1111 Mhz. How do we know that is 1,111,100 cps?

We know that because earth makes 1 revolution in 1 day (24 hrs).
We know there are 60 mins in an hour.
We know there are 60 secs in a min.
Etc.

Now, destroy the earth, forget all about its' revolutions.

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?

If you were an alien the rf would NOT appear to change (assuming they
are "stupid" enough to base time on the rotations of their planet), what
does it look like to them? Certainly NOT 1,111,100 cps.

So, how could everyone ever agree on what that rf REALLY is?

You must give me an example NOT including the earth, else I will give
you back examples basing time on my goldfish swimming! (and he/she makes
way more than 1 revolution per/day!)

And, perhaps gravity and time are only two phenomenons of the same thing ...

In space, there is only the ether ...

Regards,
JS

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:41:16 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH

Any dimbulb alien knows that! They've been watching our TV for more
than half a century to catch onto the universal standard of a
commercial break.

Desperately trying to elevate the technical content of this thread to
at least the level of a Duz laundry ad.... "Antennas led astray"
sounds like a 50s Sal Mineo flick about delinquents.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I
must admit--if Einstein said it, it must be true! half-smirk

Warmest regards,
JS

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:14:56 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Cesium by any other name would smell as sw.... no, that alludes to
Shakespeare and we know how much he gets ****ed on here by
anglophobes. We'll try that again:

If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens
watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this
case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical
problem; it is a cultural one.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Smith I wrote:

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I


Make that "New York Sun."

Hey, what can I say, I read the Times ...

JS

John Smith I wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Yes, really.

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

Einstein has nothing to do with it nor does the rotation of the Earth.

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined
as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest
at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero)."

Where Einstein comes in is that the cesium atom has to be at rest in
your reference frame.

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Only in comic books and movies.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:
In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Through no fault of its own. Seconds may be a different
length in that far-far-away place. After all, the length
of a second is relative to velocity so cycles/second are
also relative, i.e. there is more than one way to accomplish
a red shift. 1. changing cycles divided by fixed seconds.
2. Fixed cycles divided by changing cycles. 3. changing
cycles divided by changing seconds.

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I
must admit--if Einstein said it, it must be true! half-smirk

Einstein also said, "God doesn't roll dice." One of the
quantum physicists responded, "Not only does God roll
dice, but he rolls them in the dark." :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com