John Smith wrote:
On which, I respond; "Why would the mere length/phasing of elements on
an antenna be able to cause one to act as a mirror (the one longer than
DE) and the other as a director (the one shorter than DE)?

It has to do with the phasing of the photons and the
spacing of the elements. The phasing+spacing results
in constructive interference in the direction of the
director and destructive interference in the direction
of the reflector referenced to the driven element. The
length of the element affects (and effects) the phase
of the re-radiated signals from the parasitic elements.

Using EZNEC with two identical driven elements, one
can control the direction of maximum radiation simply
by adjusting the phasing of one of the driven elements
referenced to the other. Reversing the phasing reverses
the direction of maximum radiation.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Using EZNEC with two identical driven elements, one
...

Cecil:

The "approximations" which EZNEC accomplishes, may, or may not be
real--indeed, much of what these "antenna tools" have told me appears to
work in reality ... I CANNOT and do NOT say these tools are without value.

However, when you have an "un-ponder-able unknown", such as the ether,
and you see NO mention of it in mathematical equations, no allowances
made for it, no affects/effects noted for it--indeed, when you see a
public ignorant of it--don't you grow a bit suspicious? I mean, and
according to Einstein, every bit of matter we can possibly view was torn
asunder from it! It is real, we only exist in an altered and unnatural
state--along with our antennas.

Why has ether become synonymous with "kook?" It should not be; why does
it seem to have been missing from everyones physics books but mine? My
books just stated it was as it appears to be--unknown, but a real
thing--I took it to be a thing future minds would "discover"; that its'
promise was a better understanding of the world, in the future.

Now, we can come up with a lot of explanations about a lot of
things--might it not help to give this KNOWN/REAL thing some thought;
ask some questions on its' possible interactions with our antennas?

If my wonder-ings about this ether cause me to be a marked man and
easily dismissed--so be it. And, I would prefer to read and experiment
in this direction than jump to the conclusion our antennas are emitting
photons, others may feel free to disagree with me and suffer no evil
intentions from me.

Whatever is the reality of this matter, let's pray it quickly becomes
known; either way I will be just as thrilled. New discoveries, which we
can get our minds wrapped around, speak of new and interesting
phenomenon we can manipulate to our benefit.

And, debate is interesting ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Why has ether become synonymous with "kook?"

From Wikipedia:
"Einstein in later years proposed calling empty space equipped
with gravitational and electromagnetic fields the "ether",
whereby, however, this word is not to denote a substance with
its traditional attributes. Thus, in the "ether" there are to
be no determinable points, and it is meaningless to speak of
motion relative to the "ether." Such a use of the word "ether"
is of course admissible, and when once it has been sanctioned
by usage in this way, probably quite convenient."

Ives was the first to positively measure the effect of speed on clock
rates. He wrote in 1940 in a paper in Science:

"I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished"
[...]. Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment
of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected
experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Me neither... The old bull dozer refused to start and I hunted all
over the place for a can of ether... Didn't detect one either... Mind
you it was 92 degrees yesterday and rooting around through the
toolshed with the sun beating on the steel roof for ether was no
picnic... I doubt that Michaelson and Morley worked up that much
sweat looking for it...

denny

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
"I have considered the popular claim that the ether has been "abolished"
[...]. Reverting to experimental findings I have reviewed the experiment
of Sagnac, having in mind the claim that the ether can not be detected
experimentally. I have asserted that, in the light of the experimentally
found variation of clock rate with motion, this experiment does detect
the ether."

Yes, that annoying fact, clocks slow when you place 'em on jet aircraft,
refuel the aircraft in flight, and make a few trips around the
circumference of the earth.

In my present state of thought, this directly relates to the speed of
light; further, I suspect, the ether is responsible in establishing the,
seeming, barrier of the speed of light. As you approach the speed of
light, things are not linear, you must apply magnitudes more energy
without corresponding gains in speed. And, although I tend to believe
the math which "proves" this, it ends up just another thing I fail to
completely be able to wrap my mind around. But, it seems at the speed
of light, traversing the ether with matter offers such a resistance to
the speed of matter, any further increases of speed are impossible--no
matter the amount of expenditure in energy ...

At this point, I am just happy to be in the company of others who will,
at least, accept the possibility of the ether, and the possibility it
can/does have real effects/affects on our material world.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas
emitting photons?
...
Regards,
JS

Ok. So you pose your arguments why photons are at play ... I listen, we
move to the second level ...
...
Regards,
JS

This:

"Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple
physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said,
if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory
is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math
is nothing but bookkeeping."

And this:

Amrit Sorli: Einstein stood on the point that the notion of "space"
designates "gravitational ether", which is a physical reality. "With
regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined
without ether", says he in his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity".
According to Einstein, gravitational ether does not have the same
properties as ponderable matter, that is why it cannot be described by
notions such as "time" and "motion" .
....
Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in
human reasoning. Changes take place "here and now" in the gravitational
ether.

From he

http://www.mu6.com/einstein.html

I am sure most will find it highly interesting and enlightening ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in
human reasoning.

Lots of things didn't exist before homo sapiens. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in
human reasoning.

Lots of things didn't exist before homo sapiens. :-)


---------


What if all things were true - and false? Personally, I'd just open the
box and ask the cat. Assuming that it was still alive, that is. G

And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway?


Ed, NM2K

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:35:50 -0400, Ed Cregger
wrote:

And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway?

He was Lucia's boyfriend who played the Pianoforte. Their lives were
humorously chronicled in an illustrated fiction called "Goober Peas."
Continuing themes of their friends and relatives populated this series
with such stories as the "strange attractors" of kites and trees, or
the wave function of a football that couldn't be kicked. The
illustrator was purported to be one Eisenstein, but this was later
found to be erroneously inferred from earlier cinematic work with
similar themes found in "Aleksandr Nevskiy."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Ed Cregger" wrote in message
.. .
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in
human reasoning.

Lots of things didn't exist before homo sapiens. :-)


---------


What if all things were true - and false? Personally, I'd just open the
box and ask the cat. Assuming that it was still alive, that is. G

And who was this Schroedinger guy anyway?


Ed, NM2K

The point Schroedinger was trying to make is that in the absence of
information, there is no way we can absolutely know something. The very act
of measuring or observing something causes the wave function to collapse and
reveal an object's position, speed or some other state we are trying to
establish. Opening the box and asking the cat seems eminently reasonable.
The cat is never actually in a quasi alive/dead condition. In it's own
'universe' (box) it is either alive or dead. We cannot know which without
opening the box at which point the two separated 'universes' collapse into
one. Prior to opening the box it is necessary to consider both options alive
or dead as a possibility but there is no third case where the cat is both
alive and dead at the same time. The physical laws in our universe do not
appear to allow for objects larger than a buckyball molecule of C60 to exist
in quasi states.
Trying to establish whether individual photons or electromagnetic waves are
emitted by an antenna suffers from the same difficulties. The very act of
trying to establish what is being emitted will collapse the wave function of
the photons or electromagnetic wave to reveal one or the other, but not both
simultaneously.

Mike G0ULI