On Jul 8, 5:27*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 7, 3:22 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
think that the population would understand
that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line
trajectory.

Hi Art,

The American Constitution does not "give" rights. *It simply attempts
to prevent government from eliminating them.

Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
generally follow a parabolic trajectory. *Isssac Newton's laws of
motion apply without caveat.

ac6xg

It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three

And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?

The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
current
overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
has little or no
effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin.

The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

ac6xg

On Jul 9, 3:30 pm, wrote:
On Jul 8, 5:27 am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jul 7, 3:22 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 3, 5:16 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
You know John, since America gives the 'right to bear arms' you would
think that the population would understand
that a projectile must have rotation to follow a straight line
trajectory.

Hi Art,

The American Constitution does not "give" rights. It simply attempts
to prevent government from eliminating them.

Under the influence of gravity, sub-orbital ballistic projectiles
generally follow a parabolic trajectory. Isssac Newton's laws of
motion apply without caveat.

ac6xg

It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three

And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?

The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
current
overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
has little or no
effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin.

The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

ac6xg

Wrong again!
You are following the errors of the past again. Yes, the particle that
is
projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
fraction of its life.
And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
current is limited
as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
required for the
velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
according to
Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
people can get a degree.!

Art Unwin wrote:
It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three

And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?

The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
current
overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
has little or no
effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin.

The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

ac6xg

Wrong again!
You are following the errors of the past again.

Evidently nobody's gotten around to correcting the physics texts to
better reflect your point of view yet.

Yes, the particle that
is
projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
fraction of its life.

What particle?

And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
current is limited
as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
required for the
velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
according to
Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
people can get a degree.!

Of course not. No one is teaching this stuff, Art. If someone
mentioned B.S. they weren't referring to a degree.

ac6xg

On Jul 9, 5:41 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
It followsa straight line trajectory in two dimensions out of three

And it's completely motionless in one dimension out of the three. So
what?

The weak force othewise known as the magnetic field of the eddy
current
overcpmes or neutralises gravity while applying spin such gravitation
has little or no
effect on the trajectory as it is projected with spin.

The weak force is NOT otherwise known as a magnetic field. It relates
to radioactive decay and is only relevant at distances less than 10
e-8 nanometers and has nothing to do with electromagnetism.

ac6xg

Wrong again!
You are following the errors of the past again.

Evidently nobody's gotten around to correcting the physics texts to
better reflect your point of view yet.

Yes, the particle that
is
projected away from the radiator is radio active in terms of a
fraction of its life.

What particle?

And yes the distance that the madnetic field resulting from the eddy
current is limited
as seen with the common elevation style experiments. The distanbce
required for the
velocity of the partical is NOT a determination of distance travelled
according to
Newtons laws of motion. I hope you are not teaching this stuff so
people can get a degree.!

Of course not. No one is teaching this stuff, Art. If someone
mentioned B.S. they weren't referring to a degree.

ac6xg

Believe me they will. To follow theories as being correct without
your own personal study is to become a lemming
I suspect you are still holding on to the Quark and "W" theory
of Feynman but as yet I don't believe one iota of evidence has been
found
that declares their presence or the actions that he predicted.
Theories really
depend on your academic stature and the power of perswation. Remember
people such as Green had little education but achieved fame without
being a lemming.
Same goes for others in the radio field whose work was purloined by
others.
When the corrected books are published will you leave college in anger
or do what all
instructures do and tell the students to buy new books every year at
high cost
and pretend you knew all along? Not once have you successfully evoked
the laws of the masters
to bring my logic to a halt. Everything you have stated has been
incorrect or faulty us of known laws

Art Unwin wrote:
Everything you have stated has been
incorrect or faulty us of known laws

So basically it's your contention is that everything I say is wrong.
Ok, you're right, Art. :-)

ac6xg

Art Unwin wrote:

...

Art:

Geesh ...

I'd hoped I'd not have to mention this ...

You know that earlier joke I made? The one about the dummy carrying the
round HEAVY rock downhill? (They guy my old Elmer made fun of?)

Well, dude, that WAS Jim Kelly ... need I say more? Give it up man--if
you argue with complete idiots, "IT" destroys what tattered argument you
have ... but them, you could have guessed that ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
have ... but them, you could have guessed that ...

Regards,
JS

them = then ... but then, you already knew that too! :-)

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

...

Art:

Geesh ...

I'd hoped I'd not have to mention this ...

You know that earlier joke I made? The one about the dummy carrying the
round HEAVY rock downhill? (They guy my old Elmer made fun of?)

Well, dude, that WAS Jim Kelly ... need I say more? Give it up man--if
you argue with complete idiots, "IT" destroys what tattered argument you
have ... but them, you could have guessed that ...

Regards,
JS


Come to think of it, Jim Kelley = "Dummy Load."

But then, you knew that, already, too ... a jerk like him is a rare
find--please, by all means, toy him along like a cat with a mouse! grin

Regards,
JS

On Jul 9, 7:53 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Everything you have stated has been
incorrect or faulty us of known laws

So basically it's your contention is that everything I say is wrong.
Ok, you're right, Art. :-)

ac6xg

So far I have been right!. You are excercising free speech without
scientific underpinnings.
You like others did not come forward and prove scientifically that
Gauss law CANNOT be extended.
You dont accept the idea of a partical with nuclear life. In fact you
don't even accept eddy currents.
If you are teaching kindegarten then such free speech is in order as
they will not challenge you.
But you must expect challenges from grown ups unless you supply
underlying data for claims made
or refuted. I will now give you a chance to show what expertise you
have.
Professionals in antenna design work mainly in the higher frequencies
where they show circular
eddy currents on the internal wave guide walls. So why on the lower
frequences do amateurs deny
the existance of surface carried eddy currents? This same scientific
fact is used in detecting material flaws without destruction
as fissures in metal alters the eddy current. So where in the hell are
you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?

On Jul 9, 9:24 pm, John Smith wrote:
John Smith wrote:

...

have ... but them, you could have guessed that ...

Regards,
JS

them = then ... but then, you already knew that too! :-)

Regards,
JS

John, thank you for that. Over the years he has hinted that he was a
assistant professor at a local college
but as of late I have found it hard to fathom things out as he is so
lacking in the field of physics and electrical
engineering but I gave him the benefit of doubt. So it is quite
possible that like Richard he has his moments.
Like going to the bedroom for a clean shirt. forgetting why he came to
the bedroom so puts on his pyjamas and gets into bed
lesving his wife already to go out while he goes to sleep. I think
they call that senior moments. Well the info given clears a lot of
things up
for me and I shall not continue to guess where his expertize is any
more.
Regards
Art