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

Jim Kelley wrote:

...
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


No constitution or law can EVER give rights ...

You are born with all the rights possible. Unless you are under a
constitution or law(s) which remove some (or all) of your rights--you
have every damn one of them! And unless there is a clear majority of a
govt's citizens which support that constitution/laws, you are witness to
an unjust constitution/law(s) ...

As our constitution notes, these are God given rights--no man may ever
take them away--you CAN agree to a contract NOT to exercise some of your
rights to the betterment of all.

Men get together and form govt's and agree to create laws which limit
their rights--FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. When that no longer is happening, it
is time to reform, re-elect or even go as far as a revolution to restore
just rights ... our constitution makes that a duty for Americans, and
requires us to remain ever vigilant in the protection of our rights.

If you believe laws give or protect your rights--you already have lost
them to a guy on the street playing craps ...

Regards,
JS

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
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. This can be
seen with
elevation experiments

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