There is obviously a lot of confusion between some of the posters that
need to be corrected
Mention has been made of a bosun' and higgs field as something as
being factual.
In fact it is very contraversal an d is only a theory that has not
been confirmed™
CERN experiments are trying to put something substantial behind this
theory but
nobody really knows the extent of a Higg field and nobody has caught a
bosun'
Feynman with his vectors took the notion that a additional particle
combination
provided mass, this at a time that neutrons were considered without
mass.
Feymans assumption lingers on inspite of the fact that it is now
proven that
neutrinos really do have mass. All of this talk is based around
something
that is not present on this earth, not seen thus not counted just
names
searching for a subject to be tagged upon.
Now we come to the subject of "wave length" as in radiation , the
subject of this post.
Wavelength only has meaning if a radiator only has two degrees of
freedom which means "straight".
But a wavelength can move in many directions and elevations such that
it has a shape of a sphere or worse.
To talk of something of" such and such" a wavelength does not pertain
to a straight line or a three
dimensional shape such as a cube or sphere so the idea of refering to
a wavelength as a linear length
is absolutely meaningles because one is using a three dimensional
object to describe a two dimensional linear dimention.
And for the last one I refer to Newtons law of action and reaction. On
this earth of ours there is no such thing as a single force
which is why Newton refers to "action": If one tries to pull a piece
of caramel apart there is not just one force at play but four fources
since one must include the right angle forces that is "necking" the
caramel at the center. Thus a force cannot exist in a straight line
but must include a rotational force for equilibrium. It is that action
which Newton is referring to and not a single straight vector
The confusion comes about when Newtons laws are paraphrased as a
"force" when it must state an "action"
My posting is clearly placed within the Earth's boundary so talk of
Quarks ,Bosun" Higgs field etc is clearly irrevalent to the subject
of radiation
unless it is a attempt to bait me or to create confusion about the
subject of radiation when its aim should be education and debate.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

Art Unwin wrote:
There is obviously a lot of confusion between some of the posters that
need to be corrected

Only one that I've seen.

Mention has been made of a bosun' and higgs field as something as

Bosun?

Are we in the Navy now?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
My posting is clearly placed within the Earth's boundary so talk of
Quarks ,Bosun" Higgs field etc is clearly irrevalent to the subject
of radiation
unless it is a attempt to bait me or to create confusion about the
subject of radiation when its aim should be education and debate.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

well, art, how dare you think we could be trying to bait you or create more
confusion. i hardly think we could possibly create more confusion than you
have right now. try to explain these for instance... if it takes that
magical mystery particle settling on diamagnetics to create an
electromagnetic wave, how does the sun which is all plasma create
electromagnetic waves? and if the weak force is so much stronger than
gravity, and it interacts with the multitude of these magical mystery
particles that spew forth from the sun how come we haven't collapsed into a
weak force black hole? it takes lots of mass to create a black hole because
gravity is so weak, but if the weak force is stronger than it should
collapse us even easier. and if the neutrino's well measured interaction
with matter is so weak it must take a huge number of them to be your magical
mystery particle so we should really have collapsed under their weak force a
long time ago! oh wait, maybe their weak force is what does spin so we are
really talking about a spindizzy effect that if captured would allow remote
manipulation of matter, i always wondered where Blish came up with that
device, maybe you have hit on the secret! come on art, the wx is going to
be bad across much of the country here this weekend and we need some good
entertainment!

On Sep 12, 6:18*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !
Until you can determine whether that is correct or not you cannot
move forward.
As yet, nobody has disproved that statement with counter facts. If you
cannot explain that simple fact
you surely cannot understand Newtons laws and how the use of such laws
provide the presence
of eddy current which provides a skin depth of mechanical resistance.
I use the term mechanic
because I recognise the importance of the four forces in the standard
model and the Grand Universal Theory.
So until you are able to concentrate and tackle the Gauss and Maxwell
connection that I started with
there is no hope for you to procede in a scientific matter, and that
goes for every body, not just you.
Best regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 6:18 am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !

around and around we go... i quoted the required passages from jackson and
ramo/whinnery/vanduzer to show that adding time to gauss'es law was
incorrect. the law is time independent, meaning it does not require a time
term, it applies for all time instantaneously and it is properly included in
maxwell's equations as is. your addition of 't' is not necessary. proof
is not necessary, it is by definition and intuitively obvious to anyone with
the proper background.

On Sep 12, 11:39*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 6:18 am, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !

around and around we go... i quoted the required passages from jackson and
ramo/whinnery/vanduzer to show that adding time to gauss'es law was
incorrect. *the law is time independent, meaning it does not require a time
term, it applies for all time instantaneously and it is properly included in
maxwell's equations as is. *your addition of *'t' is not necessary. *proof
is not necessary, it is by definition and intuitively obvious to anyone with
the proper background.

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current where it duplicates Maxwells law
Find a ham who is conversant with physics and mathematics bring him
forward on your behalf for debate.
Tell him what you want debated say, what is stated above. Do that and
you will do a service for ham radio.
Warn him that the question as to whether a static field can be
transformed to a dynamic field quoting any book
that says you can't. He will then refuse to appear. End of story.
Art...is it still raining? Are you still all wet?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 12, 11:39 am, "Dave" wrote:

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current where it duplicates Maxwells law

so you had to extend a set of equations that you say is giving proper
results as they were written oh so long ago and have been implemented in all
sorts of antenna modeling software that you say works just fine... so what
did your extension do? if the software works as is without your changes to
the equations then how are your changes necessary? what does your change to
them predict that isn't already in there?? since you didn't write your own
software, but are fond of quoting results of whatever you use, then
obviously your change wasn't necessary and yet you rely on it... very
strange... and no, its still raining and should be raining all weekend... so
keep ranting... i still want to know about the neutrinos and how they settle
on plasmas that are decidedly not diamagnetic and cause them to radiate.

On Sep 12, 7:08*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 11:39 am, "Dave" wrote:

Oh David I extended it to make it dynamic by adding a time varying
current *where it duplicates Maxwells law

so you had to extend a set of equations that you say is giving proper
results as they were written oh so long ago and have been implemented in all
sorts of antenna modeling software that you say works just fine... so what
did your extension do? *if the software works as is without your changes to
the equations then how are your changes necessary? *what does your change to
them predict that isn't already in there?? *since you didn't write your own
software, but are fond of quoting results of whatever you use, then
obviously your change wasn't necessary and yet you rely on it... very
strange... and no, its still raining and should be raining all weekend... so
keep ranting... i still want to know about the neutrinos and how they settle
on plasmas that are decidedly not diamagnetic and cause them to radiate.


IF YOU DO NOT PRE GUIDE IT TO A PLANAR DESIGN WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE WEAK FORCE
IT WILL SUPPLY A BETTER RADIATOR BY ADDING THE WEAK FORCE TO SUPPLY
REQUIREMENTS ASKED OF IT
PER MAXWELLS LAWS AND NOT BY YAGI APPROACH. I.E ASK FOR MAX GAIN AND
THE PROGRAM CHOOSES.
ART

On Sep 12, 10:35*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 12, 6:18*am, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message

David, what I have stated is based on known laws and phenomina and
started with the recognision
that applying a time varying field and radiators to a Gaussian field
equates to Maxwell's laws.
Right from the start you could not concentrate on proving or
disproving that statement !
*Until you can determine whether that is correct or not you cannot
move forward.
As yet, nobody has disproved that statement with counter facts. If you
cannot explain that simple fact
you surely cannot understand Newtons laws and how the use of such laws
provide the presence
of eddy current which provides a skin depth of mechanical resistance.
I use the term mechanic
*because I recognise the importance of the four forces in the standard
model and the Grand Universal Theory.
So until you are able to concentrate and tackle the Gauss and Maxwell
connection that I started with
there is no hope for you to procede in a scientific matter, and that
goes for every body, not just you.
Best regards
Art

To it would be nice if physics was so tidy that there could be shown a
neat relationship of the 4 forces, thus the birth of a new Grand
Unification Theory. Einstein would have liked to find the unifying
factor but he dies before he could accomplish that. He never claimed
that there had to be a iuifier, only that physics was of such an
orderly nature that it would seem consistent that there should be a
unification.

Art is acting on the assumption that there MUST be a unifier. The CERN
scientists postulate that some particle such as a theoretical higgs
boson could be discovered and observed as the "God particle" that
imparts matter to other particles which creates mass, matter being
pervasive in the universe but mostly in its invisible dark form. From
that they say that we could begin to study the relationship of this
higgs boson to the other seeminly unrelated forces and find a grand
unifier.

To me, the concept of a unifier is NOT something that necessarily has
to exist. Maybe there is no unifier and in fact, the student of
quantum physics does not see physics as being completely orderly as a
student of astrophysics sees it. At the quantum level, the universe is
highly random and probabilistic. Any forces we have identified at that
level, and future forces we discover, do not have to be unified by any
theory; that is not the way I see things either. I see no reason for
scientisits to chase after this holy grail (other than by doing so at
low cost and in their spare time so as not to waster resources) and I
see the likelihood of anyone finding it at 10% at best. There is no
observation or calculation that states a unifier must exist,

For all the good that will result in the future from the CERN
accelerator, looking for a unfier based on new studies of a "higgs
boson" (God) particle is a Hail Mary pass that in all likelihood will
not succeed. Let's not be dissapointed when it doesn't. For HF
antennas, most is already known which needs to be known by application
of known EM principles, the study of which has infinitely less
likelihood of pointing to a grand unifier as Art repeatedly attempts
in these postings. However, he is doing it in his spare time and at no
cost to society thus fulfilling what I think is the amount of
resources should be expended in finding the grand unifier.