|
Equilibrium in free space
I want to share with you one problem that I have on the above subject
When placing a yagi in free space the computor programs supply a gain figure where according to my thinking the root cause for ejection is the intersection of two magnetic field.How this happens with a yagi is a matter of conjecture. Any pointers? Performing the same with an arrangement in equilibhrium there is no gravity and yet gain is shown. This leads to four posabilities ! in the absence of levitation ejection is provided by the sliding of the charges at the radiator ends as with corona in a vacuum. Problem no spin applied 2 With a coupled antenna, yagi there exists two magnetic fields that intersect where the charges again because of the absence of equilibrium the charge again slides off the end Problem again no spin applied 3 The programs have been modified from inception where the only rules involved were Maxwell's laws which was then modified to correllate with pre conceived known facts 4 The concept of initial reliance on equilibrium as preached by the masters is incorrect and my reasoning is in error I do not know the answer as I am not skilled with respect to the algerythms used but the unknown can supply ammunition for loose mouths until it is resolved One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux and Maxwell includes the vector associated with the weak force where gravity is non existent or zero !. Best regards Art |
Equilibrium in free space
Art Unwin wrote:
One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux and Maxwell includes the vector associated with the weak force where gravity is non existent or zero !. Best regards Art You've just unvailed the dirty secret that antennas don't work in space and that all the so called communications with Appolo, Pioneer, Mir, ISS, the shuttle and all telecommunications satellites is faked. Now you had better be on the watch for the black helicopters for reveling this. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: I want to share with you one problem that I have on the above subject When placing a yagi in free space the computor programs supply a gain figure where according to my thinking the root cause for ejection is the intersection of two magnetic field (...) Not bad, but still a pile of garbage. Your word salad reminds me of papers submitted by student who didn't have a clue what they were doing and simply threw every buzzword they could remember into the report. Did you use an online technobabble generator, rant-o-matic, or created it by hand? If online, I would be interesting in the URL as I have a business plan to re-write. Incidentally, if you're trying to regain your equalibrium, I suggest that lay off the booze. Also, if your antenna is performing self-ejections, you might want to tighten the mounting clamps. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 14, 9:45*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: One thing is certain, Gauss states that static particles cannot radiate in free space as there is no exchange of flux and Maxwell includes the vector associated with the weak force where gravity is non existent or zero !. Best regards Art You've just unvailed the dirty secret that antennas don't work in space and that all the so called communications with Appolo, Pioneer, Mir, ISS, the shuttle and all telecommunications satellites is faked. Now you had better be on the watch for the black helicopters for reveling this. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. No I have not invalidated the concept of radiation in space since I cannot rule out the root cause of the phenomia of two insecting magnetic fields At the same time I have little belief in the total veracity of antenna programs because of assumptions made on preparation I also suspect that the expansion to rediation in free space was concluded without due consideration as the programs depict the only change as zero reflection with the absence of earth with out consideration to other factors. I am not denying radiation in out space cannot exist only that I do not know how it is created without influence from outside or added forces. At the same time there are more indications of correctness in my analysis via well known phenomina than the puzzle that I have present. I rely only on the logic presented by other people which I have no reason to discredit most of which have stood the test of time. The computer programs were based on the laws of Maxwell so assumptions should not have been necessary nor the revisions made over the years One assumption is clearly in error is based on sino soidal current flow where a full wave radiator is considered to be a tank circuit where energy is moved via pulses, obviously I am missing something here as well as the mathematical constant of subtraction for free space. There is a problem but the root cause is obviously unknown thus my theorem should not be discounted Formulas formed by Einstein on relativity have included the same laws of Maxwell who includes the weak force which is nothing but a vector at the present time such that all forces equal zero. The latter was chosen as a fact thus there was no option to conclude that the gap created via vectors was a unidentifiable force often stated as an anti gravitational force thus without gravity all forces must change to conform to equilibrium, something I cannot accept per Gauss. Jim, I am just being honest about my findings and at the same time pointing to areas of disagreement by the unknowns that are presented. Only the test of time is of value as more knoweledge is accumulated Regards Art |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 14, 11:26*pm, John Smith wrote:
No. *But the new pictures of light-waves do suggest they travel a medium which exists, EVEN, in space, and yet, unseen to-date, and end up "striking" the antenna(s) in question ... but then, most have always accepted waves need a "medium" to propagate on/in ... but then--assign it the name "either" and grown men cower in the shadows, in fear! *ROFLOL Regards, JS Egad, another senility eruption. |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 14, 10:26*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... You've just unvailed the dirty secret that antennas don't work in space and that all the so called communications with Appolo, Pioneer, Mir, ISS, the shuttle and all telecommunications satellites is faked. Now you had better be on the watch for the black helicopters for reveling this. No. *But the new pictures of light-waves do suggest they travel a medium which exists, EVEN, in space, and yet, unseen to-date, and end up "striking" the antenna(s) in question ... but then, most have always accepted waves need a "medium" to propagate on/in ... but then--assign it the name "either" and grown men cower in the shadows, in fear! *ROFLOL Regards, JS John the problem as I see it is how the magnetic field is bestowed on a unbound particle that is not rejected by the Earth"s magnetic field but allowed to ecape from the Sun's magnetic field .. It is this I have no explanation for and despite all reference to garbage nobody can supply the true creation of radiation. More light needs to be shed on the subject of space. to determine what one calls garbage because of a compressed field of knoweledge where another without those constraints see it as a treasure. I have a strong suspicion that scientists have assigned diiferent names based on the theory assigned to one many of which there is no evidence of their existance Best regards Art |
Equilibrium in free space
John Smith wrote:
But the new pictures of light-waves do suggest they travel a medium which exists, ... One of my books on the subject calls it the "quantum soup". -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Art Unwin wrote:
... John the problem as I see it is how the magnetic field is bestowed on a unbound particle that is not rejected by the Earth"s magnetic field but allowed to ecape from the Sun's magnetic field . It is this I have no explanation for and despite all reference to garbage nobody can supply the true creation of radiation. More light needs to be shed on the subject of space. to determine what one calls garbage because of a compressed field of knoweledge where another without those constraints see it as a treasure. I have a strong suspicion that scientists have assigned diiferent names based on the theory assigned to one many of which there is no evidence of their existance Best regards Art There is actually a LOT in the few words above, it is deceptively stated--although, perhaps, without intention; had to really think about it a bit: I quite agree with the fact that what you refer to as "have assigned different names [to] ..." is/are at the center of what you speak, what the "either is" and what the Hadron project is about to attempt to look at, in greater detail ... indeed, it is where the "new knowledge/discoveries" are about to emerge from (if there is any chance that will happen--at all.) Hopefully, this all will end up pointing at new ways to design antennas to take advantage of "its'" (the eithers') properties. And, is an area adjacent to, in the very least, the one you are in the process of contemplating/imagining ... The earths magnetic field (indeed, any static/changing magnetic field for that matter), gravity, suns particles/emissions/etc. all depend on the "either" you place in question; when you sprinkle iron filings on a sheet of paper and position a magnet below--this is what you look at; I believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force" (or, is intrinsically related), but talk about a misnomer! We just spin our wheels with little progress ahead ... but then Einstein even referred to it as, and I paraphrase, "un-comprehend-able!" But then, perhaps some of "these things" are just shooting bullets (particles) as some picture the "particles." One must acknowledge this, although I have come NOT to "believe it", at this point. We can't know until we really "know", and even then we may have yet to "prove" it; and, therein lies the real problem(s). For now, we must face the goons who poke fun at men and women who wonder, and dream, yet are certain "they" know SOMETHING EXISTS THERE. You are correct to focus your vision(s) towards the Hadron project ... it is at least one hope of vindication! :-( And, even if you still do not see the either as I do -- you will "come 'round!" grin Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Egad, another senility eruption. Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Charles Seife: "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Quantum physicists are forced to conclude that the vacuum isn't truly empty. It is seething with particles and energy." "Casimir effect: The ability of the ZERO-POINT ENERGY, the particles constantly winking in and out of existence, to exert a force. Predicted by Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, the Casimir effect has been measured." Reckon all quantum physicists are senile? Aye Captain. Those words move evermore towards undeniable, each and everyday ... the question? A very valid one ... Warm regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
John Smith wrote:
I believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force" Magnetism is one aspect of the electromagnetic force. The "weak force" is associated with atomic nuclei. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: But the new pictures of light-waves do suggest they travel a medium which exists, ... One of my books on the subject calls it the "quantum soup". And, again, very much in few words ... And, what a strange "soup", indeed ... Even a simple observer can change what "soup" finally emerges from the quantum-soup-can! Be it, chicken? Beef? Vegetable? chuckle Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: I believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force" Magnetism is one aspect of the electromagnetic force. The "weak force" is associated with atomic nuclei. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force Cecil: You have a real talent for those "simple statements" of yours; you know?; the ones which end up provoking arguments/discussions which are never-ending ... you must excuse me, I have a prior appointment ... wink However, in the end yawn, just another elephant with three different blind-men "taking a look" at it ... straight-faced-look and a chuckle However, as "correct" as possible, seen from the "perspective" we presently stand upon ... ;-) Warmest regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 15, 8:11*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote: I believe it is also what is referred to as "the weak force" Magnetism is one aspect of the electromagnetic force. The "weak force" is associated with atomic nuclei. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil, if one follows the above url to electroweak interaction it states the connection between electromagnetic and the weak force interactionas emminating from a single force ie weak force is part and parel of the primary force. In radiation a time varying magnetic field also creats the circulating field ( parity of forces). such that eddy currents matches the description inferred by the above electroweak interaction . Personally I see both interactions as being one and the same thing. In the path to this segment it infers the weak force is also in free space and it is that I do not understand, as the root cause of action is the intersection of two separate magnetic fields and the amalgamation of two forces producing a triangle of forces summation in three dimensional form ( three movements of freedom required for stabalization).Thus the mystery is how two magnetic fields are created and more important WHEN ! Art |
Equilibrium in free space
Art Unwin wrote:
Personally I see both interactions as being one and the same thing. If you mean that they have been unified, that is correct. In the path to this segment it infers the weak force is also in free space and it is that I do not understand, ... Understand that free space is not empty. There exists a quantum structure about which not much is yet understood. Google "dark mass" and "dark energy". Everything that we can see and measure appears to be about 5% of what exists. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 15, 8:01*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Egad, another senility eruption. Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Charles Seife: "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Quantum physicists are forced to conclude that the vacuum isn't truly empty. It is seething with particles and energy." "Casimir effect: The ability of the ZERO-POINT ENERGY, the particles constantly winking in and out of existence, to exert a force. Predicted by Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, the Casimir effect has been measured." Reckon all quantum physicists are senile? -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com I reckon most are not although some may be. However, Seif is currently an associate professor in New York University's Journalism Department with a Masters in Math. He is nowhere near the caliber of a quantum physicist which would render your point moot, would it not? |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 15, 8:58*am, John Smith wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Egad, another senility eruption. Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Charles Seife: "Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ... Quantum physicists are forced to conclude that the vacuum isn't truly empty. It is seething with particles and energy." "Casimir effect: The ability of the ZERO-POINT ENERGY, the particles constantly winking in and out of existence, to exert a force. Predicted by Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, the Casimir effect has been measured." Reckon all quantum physicists are senile? Aye Captain. Those words move evermore towards undeniable, each and everyday ... the question? *A very valid one ... Warm regards, JS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What, the "amazing" revelation that particles exist in space, even though for all practicle purposes it can be treated as a vacuum? |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 15, 12:17*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Personally I see both interactions as being one and the same thing. If you mean that they have been unified, that is correct. In the path to this segment it infers the weak force is also in free space and it is that I do not understand, ... Understand that free space is not empty. There exists a quantum structure about which not much is yet understood. Google "dark mass" and "dark energy". Everything that we can see and measure appears to be about 5% of what exists. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com That theory does seem to explain some recent observations. However, it is still theory, not absolute fact as you seem to proclaim above ("THERE EXISTS A QUANTUM STRUCTURE about which not much is yet understood"). The structure may or may not exist. I have no problem with it since nothing says that all matter must be in the form of nuclei, protons that can be combined in an orderly manner to form something large enough that we can "see". In fact, it likely does not exist physically as "matter"; rather, the theory is simply a concept that explains some observations. Given that matter is 'anything that occupies space AND has mass" dark "matter" could be any entity (like energy, that is a known entity) that can be shown to have a mass equivalent and behaves like mass under certain conditions as photons do. Certainly we are a long way from saying that this is an ether or medium that supports the transmission of TEM waves. |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
I reckon most are not although some may be. However, Seif is currently an associate professor in New York University's Journalism Department with a Masters in Math. He is nowhere near the caliber of a quantum physicist which would render your point moot, would it not? As a matter of fact, it would. From Webster's: "moot - (1) open to discussion" Here's what Charles Seife says under "Acknowledgments": "A lot of people helped me write this book: it's not possible for me to name them all. Over the past few years I have interviewed dozens of physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers who took the time to explain the nuances of their work to a journalist. I thank them for their enthusiasm and their patience. They are the reason I wrote "Alpha and Omega" in the first place." The Bibliography is pretty impressive. But feel free to try to disprove the Casimir effect. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
What, the "amazing" revelation that particles exist in space, even though for all practicle purposes it can be treated as a vacuum? The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which provide the very structure of space itself. It seems that space is a property of matter rather than vice versa. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 15, 10:56*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: I reckon most are not although some may be. However, Seif is currently an associate professor in New York University's Journalism Department with a Masters in Math. He is nowhere near the caliber of a quantum physicist which would render your point moot, would it not? As a matter of fact, it would. From Webster's: "moot - (1) open to discussion" Meaning it is arguable as to whether you point is in fact valid. I am merely trying to show, politely, that your one line assertion has little or no impact relative to the credibility of the preceding paragraphs in your post. Here's what Charles Seife says under "Acknowledgments": "A lot of people helped me write this book: it's not possible for me to name them all. Over the past few years I have interviewed dozens of physicists, cosmologists, and astronomers who took the time to explain the nuances of their work to a journalist. Not exactly an impressive bibliography but typical of something a journalist, not something a scientific researcher would write. Would a Phd candidate use Wikipedia as the bibliography in his thesis? Seife makes a great sience writer but he is not a quantum physicist not did he reference one in his "bibliography". I thank them for their enthusiasm and their patience. They are the reason I wrote "Alpha and Omega" in the first place." The Bibliography is pretty impressive. As per my assertion above, nope. Not impressive. For someone writing a junior high school term paper, yes for a "C" grade. For a scientific paper, no. It is not even a true bibliography. But feel free to try to disprove the Casimir effect. Why would I want to do that? I already agree that the vacuum of space fluctuates slightly around a zero point because, for example, EM fields in a volume at vacuum may average zero but the fields themselves fluctuate around their zero point causing quantum changes that in turn result in small fluctuations of vacuum. This does nothing to advance any theory that an ether or media exists for transmission of TEM waves. It only says that there is no such thing as a perfectly stable, absolute vacuum when fields of any kind are present, which they always are. Also your cause and effect seem reversed; the existence of TEM fields (and static fields as well) may have been shown to cause Casimir effects but Casimir effects have not been shown not make it possible for TEM fields (waves) to propagate. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
On Sep 15, 11:04*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The structure may or may not exist. Think about it. If you were somewhere where the structure of space didn't exist, you would be outside of the boundaries of our universe. -- 73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com You must be assuming that the structure of exotic matter has been proven to form part of the structure of conventional space. OK, but that is a great logical leap from theory to fact. Your assertion is only true if exotic matter truly exists in conventional space. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Actually, nothing of the sort has been proven. Far from it. All we know is that in astronomical observations, extremly large amounts of conventional matter seem to be affected by gravitational effects, positive or negative depending on theory, by some invisible entity that behaves as positive or even negative matter. For convenience sake, some physicists invented the term exotic or dark matter which may be nothing but a placeholder for some other entity that behaves like matter which advances their concept but which we do not understand yet. The observations in no way have confirmed that it IS matter. Now, IF it doesn't exist, and I don't believe it does except in perhaps a virtual sense, then I am still fully inside each of the boundaries of the 4 accepted dimensions of this Universe. |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
What, the "amazing" revelation that particles exist in space, even
though for all practicle purposes it can be treated as a vacuum? The amazing thing is that space cannot exist without those particles which provide the very structure of space itself. It seems that space is a property of matter rather than vice versa. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Theoretical absolutes don't happen as often as in the space in the head. You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us from getting people to the moon and back. |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
... Theoretical absolutes don't happen as often as in the space in the head. You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us from getting people to the moon and back. Although not clearly stated for the "general public", isn't that exactly what the Hadron project is all about?; splitting matter down to its' smallest particle(s), and therefore, discovering the "matter" which space itself is constructed from? I mean, that is what I expect ... Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
|
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The structure may or may not exist. Think about it. If you were somewhere where the structure of space didn't exist, you would be outside of the boundaries of our universe. I cannot call "that one" one way or another ... I cannot think of a model to even give me a clue ... What is your take on that? Is there "a place of true nothing?" I mean, would the matter from our universe "go there?"; if by no other means, then by some "form of osmosis?" Or, is our expanding universe "going there?" Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
John Smith wrote:
So, let's call it "whipped bananas" and let it go at that ... traditionally, it has been called the ether or aether ... I just tend to follow the tradition of the men who first defined it ... Maybe "coined the word" rather than "defined it" would be a better choice since they apparently defined it wrongly. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
I am merely trying to show, politely, that your one line assertion has little or no impact relative to the credibility of the preceding paragraphs in your post. I agree that your opinion about my opinion has equal impact. Seife makes a great sience writer but he is not a quantum physicist not did he reference one in his "bibliography". Like your assertion that transmission line currents are common-mode, your assertion that Richard P. Feynman is not a quantum physicist is equally valid. ... Casimir effects have not been shown not make it possible for TEM fields (waves) to propagate. Your double-negative makes interpreting your statement tricky. Most modern physicists believe that fields and waves are made up of quantum particles of matter/energy. The Casimir effect has been shown to expose a structure for universal space through which EM particles propagate. IMO, it is only a matter of time until cause and effect is established. In the meanwhile, you could disprove that cause and effect by proving that "TEM fields (waves) can propagate outside of the universe in the complete absence of a space structure. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
wrote:
Now, IF it doesn't exist, and I don't believe it does except in perhaps a virtual sense, then I am still fully inside each of the boundaries of the 4 accepted dimensions of this Universe. Do you really think that your beliefs have an effect on reality? Why are your unproved personal opinions so much more valuable and valid than my unproved personal opinions? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
JB wrote:
You can't convince me that gravity or magnetic fields really require a media to travel through. Assuming there is one would be a crutch. Didn't stop us from getting people to the moon and back. We certainly traveled through the medium of space in order to get to the moon. EM photons obviously travel through the medium of space. What you need to prove is that EM photons can travel somewhere else besides the medium of space, i.e. outside of the boundaries of the universe. (P.S. Since "media" is the plural of "medium", "a media" is improper.) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
John Smith wrote:
Although not clearly stated for the "general public", isn't that exactly what the Hadron project is all about?; splitting matter down to its' smallest particle(s), and therefore, discovering the "matter" which space itself is constructed from? Stephen Hawking has predicted that CERN will not find the Higgs bosom, the only particle in the Standard Model that has not been detected. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
John Smith wrote:
What is your take on that? Is there "a place of true nothing?" I mean, would the matter from our universe "go there?"; if by no other means, then by some "form of osmosis?" Or, is our expanding universe "going there?" This is covered by the "Bubble" or "Multiverse" theory. Between the bubbles, outside of any worm holes, there exists absolute nothing. An expanding universe "displaces" the absolute nothing. A particle, like a photon, cannot "go there" because there is no medium, i.e. no structure. http://www.space-art.co.uk/pages-en/...-Universes.htm -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
... This is covered by the "Bubble" or "Multiverse" theory. Between the bubbles, outside of any worm holes, there exists absolute nothing. An expanding universe "displaces" the absolute nothing. A particle, like a photon, cannot "go there" because there is no medium, i.e. no structure. http://www.space-art.co.uk/pages-en/...-Universes.htm Hmmm, I have a hard time believing in this ... no harder than some have believing in an ether ... LOL Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Maybe "coined the word" rather than "defined it" would be a better choice since they apparently defined it wrongly. Well, they did know it was a "medium" ... but you are correct, they didn't get it exactly-correct on the first try. However, even when Einstein reneged and allowed for an ether, he just left the subject hanging ... Regards, JS |
Equilibrium in free space
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Stephen Hawking has predicted that CERN will not find the Higgs bosom, the only particle in the Standard Model that has not been detected. Yep, it is pretty-much, up-for-grabs. Even the CERN project may fall short of energy levels required ... but then, you have to start somewhere. Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com