On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:
snip

Many of you are far more educated than I, but many of you
demonstrate precisely why I chose not to be brainwashed with
a formal education. Many cannot see past the end of their
noses, yet they insist upon laying down the law regarding
what is acceptable science and what is not. As though anyone
actually knows anything at all.

snip

Let's not forget that one's educational level has nothing to
do with native IQ.

Ed, NM2K

You are correct to say that education has nothing to do with IQ.
Faraday had little formal training, yet his arduous work is now
exalted by naming one of the basic electromagnetic laws after him. But
I take issue with the idea that you can't actually know anything at
all. For instance, electrodynamic theory was developed 150 years ago,
and the KNOWN successful results of that are numerous.

Newtonian mechanics held up well for hundreds of years. A whole
industrial revolution was built on it. Yet some pesky observations by
Michelson and Morley regarding the invariant speed of light found it
wanting. Relativistic mechanics subsumed Newtonian mechanics, but
Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. I believe the mathematical term
"embedding" applies.

I am currently re-studying the original theory of Maxwell, et. al.,
with the intent of finding some chink in the armor. Tesla reported
longitudinal electromagnetic wave phenomena, which contradicts the now-
standard theory that EM waves can ONLY be transversal. Using Maxwell's
original quaternion equations, before Heviside simplified them into
the now-standard vector form, one can derive longitudinal wave
components. If those exist, does that prove you don't know how to
operate a ham radio? No, it just means you're radiating something in
addition to what you expect.

You CAN know something and apply it. You just need to realize that
what you know isn't complete, and never can be.

wrote:

I am currently re-studying the original theory of Maxwell, et.
al., with the intent of finding some chink in the armor. Tesla
reported longitudinal electromagnetic wave phenomena, which
contradicts the now-standard theory that EM waves can ONLY be
transversal. Using Maxwell's original quaternion equations, before
Heviside simplified them into the now-standard vector form, one
can derive longitudinal wave components. If those exist, does that
prove you don't know how to operate a ham radio? No, it just means
you're radiating something in addition to what you expect.

Tesla made a lot of claims to try to get money from investors. There
is no evidence to support his claims of longitudinal electromagnetic
waves. What kind of detector did he use? In the century or so since
then, why has nobody re-discovered these waves?

You can determine the probability these waves exist with very simple
logic.

The range equations for radar and deep space communication are very
well established, and the radiated energy is well understood. In
order to make progress on discovering longitudinal waves, you have
to find some anomaly. If you could show some error in the equations
where power was missing, you might be on to something. But first you
have to show there really is an anomaly.

If these waves exist, where does the power come from and where does
it go? What mechanism determines how the power is split between
normal EM waves and longitudinal waves?

You can measure power very accurately. Signal to noise ratio is one
of the most crucial parameters in satellite communication. If there
were any anomalies in the range equations, someone would have
discovered them long ago. And Roy would have updated his code.

You can bet on that!

Regards,

Mike Monett

On 18 Jan, 09:17, Mike Monett wrote:
* wrote:

* I am *currently *re-studying the original theory *of *Maxwell, et.
* al., with *the *intent of finding some chink in *the *armor. Tesla
* reported *longitudinal * electromagnetic * wave * phenomena, which
* contradicts the *now-standard *theory that EM *waves *can *ONLY be
* transversal. Using Maxwell's original quaternion equations, before
* Heviside simplified *them into the now-standard *vector *form, one
* can derive longitudinal wave components. If those exist, does that
* prove you don't know how to operate a ham radio? No, it just means
* you're radiating something in addition to what you expect.

* Tesla made a lot of claims to try to get money from investors. There
* is no evidence to support his claims of longitudinal electromagnetic
* waves. What kind of detector did he use? In the century or *so since
* then, why has nobody re-discovered these waves?

* You can determine the probability these waves exist with very simple
* logic.

* The range equations for radar and deep space communication *are very
* well established, *and *the radiated energy is *well *understood. In
* order to *make progress on discovering longitudinal waves, *you have
* to find some anomaly. If you could show some error in *the equations
* where power was missing, you might be on to something. But first you
* have to show there really is an anomaly.

* If these waves exist, where does the power come from and *where does
* it go? *What *mechanism determines how the *power *is *split between
* normal EM waves and longitudinal waves?

* You can measure power very accurately. Signal to noise ratio *is one
* of the most crucial parameters in satellite communication. *If there
* were any *anomalies *in *the *range *equations, *someone *would have
* discovered them long ago. And Roy would have updated his code.

* You can bet on that!

* Regards,

* Mike Monett

Roy's program is nothing more than a calculator.
It is not equipped with computor analytical skills such as an
optimizer where the computor searches for possible changes to the
imput to determine maximum required results .
As a calculator you insert the math question and the calculator
provides the result
A computor optimizer does exactly what the title suggests, it works
for you in search of a better arrangement that you supplied so you may
determine an optimum solution for the inputted request. None tell you
that thematerial used must be diamagnetic so just use aluminum or
copper
and you will be O.K. As far as purchasing a computor program there are
choices out there that are not so basic.
Art
Art

On Jan 18, 11:17 am, Mike Monett wrote:

You can determine the probability these waves exist with very simple
logic.

The range equations for radar and deep space communication are very
well established, and the radiated energy is well understood. In
order to make progress on discovering longitudinal waves, you have
to find some anomaly. If you could show some error in the equations
where power was missing, you might be on to something. But first you
have to show there really is an anomaly.

I'll be the first to admit there doesn't appear to be much probability
for longitudinal waves, since there seems to be no convincing
empirical evidence. But, as with Michelson and Morley, who LOGICALLY
thought that light should travel at a slower speed against the aether,
maybe we just haven't been doing the right observation. Current theory
says longitudinal waves can't happen, so nobody seriously looks for
them or thinks to attribute any potential anomaly to them. We might
have a case of circular reasoning. Besides, practical antennas are
designed for transverse far-fields, so I don't expect they would
produce much in the way of longitudinal waves, which may be a near-
field phenomena.

The quaternion development of EM theory implies that charge divergence
is one source of longitudinal waves. That happens along the axis of
antenna conductors, but I doubt the efficiency of conversion, assuming
there is any, would be very high. Another theoretical source of
longitudinal waves come from high rate of change electric fields.
Tesla's inventions exhibited both sources. His pancake coils created
high current divergence, albeit in a spiral pattern. And his high
voltage spark discharge devices created exceedingly high rates of
change of voltage.

Where would the power come from for longitudinal waves? If I can't use
regular electricity, I'm holding out for conversion of zero-point
energy or direct mass-energy conversion. Yeah, I know, more crackpot
long shots.

I'll need something to do in retirement other than the wife's
housework. I read that mental challenges help stave off Alzheimer's.
You can't beat this for a challenge. Or maybe this falling down this
rabbit hole of kookism is the onset of Alzheimer's. Hmm. Hadn't
thought of that before.

wrote:
But, as with Michelson and Morley, who LOGICALLY
thought that light should travel at a slower speed against the aether,
maybe we just haven't been doing the right observation.

Light does travel at a slower speed against the aether
but relativity changes the length of a second when going
against the aether so it is undetectable.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote in news:M08kj.36592$JD.1707
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

Light does travel at a slower speed against the aether
but relativity changes the length of a second when going
against the aether so it is undetectable.

How does a second go against the aether?

- 73 de Mikw N3LI -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Light does travel at a slower speed against the aether
but relativity changes the length of a second when going
against the aether so it is undetectable.

How does a second go against the aether?

Did I dangle a participle?

"Light does travel at a slower speed against the
aether but relativity changes the length of a second
when the light goes against the aether, so it is
undetectable."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Light does travel at a slower speed against the aether
but relativity changes the length of a second when going
against the aether so it is undetectable.


How does a second go against the aether?


Did I dangle a participle?

"Light does travel at a slower speed against the
aether but relativity changes the length of a second
when the light goes against the aether, so it is
undetectable."

I think what he means is, how does the second know which way the
aether is pointing and why does it care?

ac6xg

On 18 Jan, 08:38, wrote:
On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:

snip

Many of you are far more educated than I, but many of you
demonstrate precisely why I chose not to be brainwashed with
a formal education. Many cannot see past the end of their
noses, yet they insist upon laying down the law regarding
what is acceptable science and what is not. As though anyone
actually knows anything at all.

snip

Let's not forget that one's educational level has nothing to
do with native IQ.

Ed, NM2K

You are correct to say that education has nothing to do with IQ.
Faraday had little formal training, yet his arduous work is now
exalted by naming one of the basic electromagnetic laws after him. But
I take issue with the idea that you can't actually know anything at
all. For instance, electrodynamic theory was developed 150 years ago,
and the KNOWN successful results of that are numerous.

Newtonian mechanics held up well for hundreds of years. A whole
industrial revolution was built on it. Yet some pesky observations by
Michelson and Morley regarding the invariant speed of light found it
wanting. Relativistic mechanics subsumed Newtonian mechanics, but
Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. I believe the mathematical term
"embedding" applies.

I am currently re-studying the original theory of Maxwell, et. al.,
with the intent of finding some chink in the armor. Tesla reported
longitudinal electromagnetic wave phenomena, which contradicts the now-
standard theory that EM waves can ONLY be transversal. Using Maxwell's
original quaternion equations, before Heviside simplified them into
the now-standard vector form, one can derive longitudinal wave
components. If those exist, does that prove you don't know how to
operate a ham radio? No, it just means you're radiating something in
addition to what you expect.

You CAN know something and apply it. You just need to realize that
what you know isn't complete, and never can be.

The chink is provided by Gauss.Adding a time varient to his law of
statics brings you to
Maxwells law Holding on to the equilibrium underpinnings you may then
insert a radiator that also is in equilibrium i.e. a full wave length.
Now you are equipped to insert same into a antenna program to
determine shape ,size,elevation e.t.c for maximum horizontal gain.
Maxwells law will then show that to meet this requirement is for the
radiator to not be parallel to the ground surface but tipped to an
angle. This angle is the summation of the curl vector and others that
are entailed.Gauss following from the Newtonian aproach of equilibrium
provides a pasaage of knoweledge that was not available in the blank
statements of Maxwell.
All this provides a picture which equals a thousand words and a sound
basis to build upon.
The understanding of this aproach has been stalled with this newsgroup
on the basis of transformation of static field to a dynamic field is
illegal, regardless of the math proving otherwise! Facts are stranger
than the fiction of this group.
Have fun with your studies.
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg (uk)

On 18 Jan, 09:18, art wrote:
On 18 Jan, 08:38, wrote:





On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:

snip

Many of you are far more educated than I, but many of you
demonstrate precisely why I chose not to be brainwashed with
a formal education. Many cannot see past the end of their
noses, yet they insist upon laying down the law regarding
what is acceptable science and what is not. As though anyone
actually knows anything at all.

snip

Let's not forget that one's educational level has nothing to
do with native IQ.

Ed, NM2K

You are correct to say that education has nothing to do with IQ.
Faraday had little formal training, yet his arduous work is now
exalted by naming one of the basic electromagnetic laws after him. But
I take issue with the idea that you can't actually know anything at
all. For instance, electrodynamic theory was developed 150 years ago,
and the KNOWN successful results of that are numerous.

Newtonian mechanics held up well for hundreds of years. A whole
industrial revolution was built on it. Yet some pesky observations by
Michelson and Morley regarding the invariant speed of light found it
wanting. Relativistic mechanics subsumed Newtonian mechanics, but
Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. I believe the mathematical term
"embedding" applies.

I am currently re-studying the original theory of Maxwell, et. al.,
with the intent of finding some chink in the armor. Tesla reported
longitudinal electromagnetic wave phenomena, which contradicts the now-
standard theory that EM waves can ONLY be transversal. Using Maxwell's
original quaternion equations, before Heviside simplified them into
the now-standard vector form, one can derive longitudinal wave
components. If those exist, does that prove you don't know how to
operate a ham radio? No, it just means you're radiating something in
addition to what you expect.

You CAN know something and apply it. You just need to realize that
what you know isn't complete, and never can be.

The chink is provided by Gauss.Adding a time varient to his law of
statics brings you to
Maxwells law Holding on to the equilibrium underpinnings you may then
insert a radiator that also is in equilibrium i.e. a full wave length.
Now you are equipped to insert same into a antenna program to
determine shape ,size,elevation e.t.c for maximum horizontal gain.
Maxwells law will then show that to meet this requirement is for the
radiator to not be parallel to the ground surface but tipped to an
angle. This angle is the summation of the curl vector and others that
are entailed.Gauss following from the Newtonian aproach of equilibrium
provides a pasaage of knoweledge that was not available in the blank
statements of Maxwell.
All this provides a picture which equals a thousand words and a sound
basis to build upon.
The understanding of this aproach has been stalled with this newsgroup
on the basis of transformation of static field to a dynamic field is
illegal, regardless of the math proving otherwise! Facts are stranger
than the fiction of this group.
Have fun with your studies.
Art Unwin KB9MZ...xg (uk)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OOOOps
I forgot to state that the house was not actually situated in the
afluent area in its intended spot. They made a lightning descision to
live in the neigboring county where the wheels came off. The house was
close to the road and leaning at an angle but they figures with the
gouges made by the axles in the dirt woud save them some costs in
drainage and with the windows leaning towards the sky they could sun
bathe while sitting in the living room.
Brain power they proudly stated while at the same time scratching
their rear ends.
Oh, and another thing. That graffitty sign I mentioned earlier which
was a red spray paint, they sprayed that on the board after the red
paint background on the board had dried off.
Regards
Art