wrote:

...

No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not
a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...)

It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ...
the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our
future; presently we only have theories ...

I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more
than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves
appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians
will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And,
finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon.

We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although
we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it
to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations
and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that
before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to
fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final
conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we
do it all over again ...

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not
a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...)

It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ...
the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our
future; presently we only have theories ...

I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more
than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves
appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians
will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And,
finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon.

We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although
we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it
to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations
and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that
before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to
fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final
conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we
do it all over again ...

Ignorant nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

...

Jim:

I do believe much of higher academia, and the subjects which drives it,
is above you, and confuses you--frankly, I think it all or most appears
as BS to you ...

That is too bad man. Perhaps a group centered around appliance usage
would better suit you ...

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

On 9 Mar, 18:09, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not
a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...)

It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ...
the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our
future; presently we only have theories ...

I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more
than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves
appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians
will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And,
finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon.

We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although
we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it
to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations
and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that
before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to
fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final
conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we
do it all over again ...

JS
--http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

On 9 Mar, 18:09, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

No, I am far from thinking light is actually "something." (at least not
a "something" we are familiar with or have "true" examples of ...)

It is unthinkable that any object/particle can exist without mass ...
the discovery and absolute proof of that being possible is in our
future; presently we only have theories ...

I don't argue that it is impossible, rather only improbable. It is more
than likely, like has happened so many times, when we know why rf waves
appear to be both wave and particle, that physicists and mathematicians
will go scurrying to their dens and emerge with new "laws." And,
finally we will have a more complete picture of the phenomenon.

We only see a puzzle, although we can "work with the puzzle", although
we can "seem" to get meaningful data from this puzzle, or manipulate it
to do useful things for us, although we "seem" to have laws, equations
and formulas to describe this puzzle--we have been there and done that
before--that is, we have rewritten those laws, equations and formulas to
fit our new findings and started pretending we have reached the final
conclusions and "know" the phenomenon--but then, at some future date, we
do it all over again ...

JS
--http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

When Gauss mused over the closed volume he concentrated on flux as the
basis of his law
and not really on the statics side in that he was formulating an
equation. True he used static particles in the concept but it was the
logic that was applied by his equation that should be understood.
Gauss used the projection of static images pill box styleand made is
equation a matter of logic based around the arbitary border. To him he
did not care as to what the static particles were resting upon since
they would not be moving across the border thus he concentrated only
on the movement of flux. So in todays world we can visualize a dipole
or a
multiple of dipoles inside the enclosed arbitary border. If the two
dipoles were not in equilibrium it would not matter to Gauss when
considering static particles since time is of a consideration and at
that time as far as Gauss went time was not part of his consideration.
If he used two dipoles which was not in equilibrium there would still
be action of the cessasian of time because flux that eventually would
breach the border was still on the move where gauss equation was based
on equilibrium at any point in time.So a single dipole is acceptable
as a carrier of static particles because at any point in time the
border constitutes the state of equilibrium. So I then took on the
same logic that gauss applied for his theorem
when I placed a cluster of elements as carriers of static particles
knowing full well that at the cessation of time flux cannot breach the
walls and also remembering that radiation will not commence prior to
penetrating the border. This is an important point since we will
always be in a state of equilibrium only and if the contained array is
in a state of equilibrium i.e.all resonant in situ.
Now some have enlarged on Gausses static law without incurring
equilibrium by extending the enclosed surface to make a conservative
field where the time of the events is zero and thus vectors were zero
in length purely as a personal aid which has now real value. And it
cannot have real value over a period of time unless intercoupling and
movement of particles can move
despite the cessation of time thus equilibrium has been destroyed.
Only when flux generated
after the cessacion of time is in a static state is in equilibrium.
Now with the addition of time all vectors on a conservative field can
be a length of real number and direction which thus includes curl.
Thus this new law supplies the logic for the formation of radiation
after the border is breached but revolves only around static particles
prior to after breaching the border over a particular event or time.
The diference as far as antennas go is that gaussion
flux as it were do not radiate or couple to other elements since it is
in a state of equilibrium where as standard antennas radiate
immediately on the application of power.
True a hundred years later LaPlace was integrated into the main stream
for the addition of electric current and magnetic fields but not via
the logic that radiation does not necessarally
end when power is removed because of re radiation.
So Art is claiming clusters of radiators that are in total equilibrium
and where the "Q" is constant as a radiating array with out parasitic
actions of other parts of same array. This allow for arrays to consist
of elements that are not required to be planar, parallel or even half
wave length
which immediately supplies the advantages of consilidation of all
elements amoung other things.
And there you have it, just a matter of maintaining equilibrium which
is what mathematics is all about. People are so engrossed in informing
other people how clever and knowelable about the matter of the
universe and neglecting the simple things that are under their nose.
If you still wish to ague or assalt please note that MIT supplied the
mathematics that gives proof to the underlying logic and if that is
not good enough Minninec will supply such arrays
if you do not presteer it to form a yagi. Read, Read, Read again and
digest. If you don't like it then don't use it, your choice.
My sincere thanks to M.I.T for supplying another avenue of
authentification
Regards
Arthur Unwin KB9MZ.......XG ( Born in Stepney close to the Tower of
London)

On 13 Mar 2007 12:55:48 -0700, "art" wrote:

My sincere thanks to M.I.T for supplying another avenue of
authentification

Hi Art,

Was this thanks for his misreading Gauss where it should have been
Maxwell?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:57:18 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
Was this thanks for his misreading Gauss where it should have been
Maxwell?

I do not understand your comment. If you go back and look at my first
post on this subject (Message-ID ),
you will see that I equated Gauss's law with the first Maxwell equation.

Gauss's law is commonly stated as:

The electric flux through a closed surface is proportional to the
amount of charge enclosed by the surface.

As I wrote before, this also happens to be the integral form of the
first Maxwell equation:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

While Gauss may have stated this law in terms of static charges, and
it finds most applications in the static case, the law also holds for
the dynamic case. This is why physicists equate Gauss's law with the
integral form of the first Maxwell equation. And as evidence of this
association, you indirectly pointed out in Message-ID
that Feynman equated the
two in the table 15-1 of volume II of his lectures.

--John

On 13 Mar 2007 22:15:37 GMT, (John E. Davis)
wrote:

I do not understand your comment.

Hi John,

It was rather explicit. To have disputed Dave's assertion with
additional material that substantiated him, makes for a rather strange
reading of Feynman.

As Art is presenting material that he has drawn time into Gauss' work
through his own invention exclusive of all other's, you have become
his touchstone as vouchsafing his claim. You can bow out once again,
of course, and become a martyr instead. Or you can indulge us with a
dialog with Art.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 13, 6:33 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 22:15:37 GMT, (John E. Davis)
wrote:

I do not understand your comment.

Hi John,

It was rather explicit. To have disputed Dave's assertion with
additional material that substantiated him, makes for a rather strange
reading of Feynman.

.. You can bow out once again,
of course, and become a martyr instead. Or you can indulge us with a
dialog with Art.


I would think this comment applied equally to Dave.


Derek

"Derek" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 13, 6:33 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On 13 Mar 2007 22:15:37 GMT, (John E. Davis)
wrote:

I do not understand your comment.

Hi John,

It was rather explicit. To have disputed Dave's assertion with
additional material that substantiated him, makes for a rather strange
reading of Feynman.

. You can bow out once again,
of course, and become a martyr instead. Or you can indulge us with a
dialog with Art.


I would think this comment applied equally to Dave.


Derek

i like the post that points out the unnecessary t in the Gauss's law
equation... well done. sri i didn't state that myself, but i have had
better things to do than try to argue with art.