On 8 Jun, 15:35, wrote:
finally someone who can answer a straight question with a straight
answer.

So what makes it new and important when so many antennas already
have it?

On Jun 8, 9:32 am, (Richard Harrison) wrote:



Art wrote:

"Without the understanding of the meaning of "equilibrium" how does one
interpret "comservative" or non conservative fields?"

Equilibrium: Synonym=balance

We know balanced antennas have the same impedance between each side of
the antenna and the earth or some other chosen groundpoint.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the book and corresponding page that you copied it from?
Seems like you missed a couple of lines.

On 8 Jun, 16:00, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"Frank's" wrote in message

newsmkai.8804$nx3.4422@edtnps89...



Can you show me how you define gravity as a theory that was taught in
Florida?
I think that would be a good example for me to follow.
Any other comments from other members as how I can satisfy the
learning problems
of this person? A discussion regarding gravity by those who know
something about it
would be enlightning. I would like to know when a theory becomes a law
as an
amateur radio operator sees it.
Richard asks for no over elabaration.
One liners please and try to follow his example.
Some body could also what materials can be turned into gold
(With references ofcourse)with definition of words and sources used.
I know you have to assume that others have some intelligence.
Most know how to change a light bulb on a tower as they have had
that experience over and over in their respective tower maintenance
careers.

The word "Theory" has several meanings, and should not be taken
out of context. As examples fromwww.dictionary.com:
1.. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely
accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2.. contemplation or speculation.
Many theories at taken to mean "2", when "1" should be used.
The theory of gravitation falls into the first class, stated as follows:
"Every object attracts every other object with a force proportional
to the masses of the objects, and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between the objects".

--
Frank

Yes but we dont know why. and we may never know if this applies to every
object. Perhaps there are some that repel.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about, Gravity being the center of a mass whose forces pushing
outwards
repels forces pointing inwards until the mass evolves into a state of
equilibrium.
Where the same forces come into play with all items of mass or energy
where
these forces equalise and retains balance with all other objects
within the Galaxy.
Since the Galaxy is expanding it's make up parts are consistently
changing because of
the changes in attractive and repelling moments as they seek to
readjust to fill
the surrounding entity which is limitless. If the energy of an entity
decays such that inward forces
cannot be repelled the expansion of the universe mechanism becomes
interupted
by the formation of black holes and where moments become
redistibruted.
Thus gravity can be defined as the mass or energy which is determined
by the opposing forces
to the particular entity to obtain equilibrium. O.k. guys wrap your
mind around that sucker
starting at the equivalent point of mass and energy and its
interchangeability.
Cecil you get first shot at pushing the barrel downhill and the others
get the
next chance to stop it.
Art

On Jun 8, 4:40 pm, art wrote:
On 8 Jun, 15:35, wrote:





finally someone who can answer a straight question with a straight
answer.

So what makes it new and important when so many antennas already
have it?

On Jun 8, 9:32 am, (Richard Harrison) wrote:

Art wrote:

"Without the understanding of the meaning of "equilibrium" how does one
interpret "comservative" or non conservative fields?"

Equilibrium: Synonym=balance

We know balanced antennas have the same impedance between each side of
the antenna and the earth or some other chosen groundpoint.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the book and corresponding page that you copied it from?
Seems like you missed a couple of lines.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

what in the worl d are you talking about? Really this is to simple.
richards' answer makes enuff sense not to have to ask a proffesor

It should have read:

"Every object attracts every other object with a force proportional
to the product of the masses, and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between the objects".

or F = G*((M1*M2)/R^2),

Where G is the constant of proportionality.

--
Frank

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:26:48 -0700, art wrote:

Richard asks for no over elabaration.

Hi Arthur,

And you answer about antennas using gravity?

THAT is over elaborate.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Frank's" wrote in message
news:Yvnai.12288$vT6.4440@edtnps90...
It should have read:

"Every object attracts every other object with a force proportional
to the product of the masses, and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between the objects".

or F = G*((M1*M2)/R^2),

Where G is the constant of proportionality.

--
Frank


As far as we know.
This is also analagous to electrostatic and magnetic forces where F can be
attractive or repelent. I wouldnt write of the posibility that this may be
also true for gravity just yet.


Jimmie