On Sep 16, 5:07*pm, "Rectifier" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 16, 3:08 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:





"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 16, 2:10 pm, "Rectifier" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Sep 16, 12:52 pm, "Frank" wrote:

Art:
You have written 2,947 posts to RRAA, and at least 2/3 of them
contain a reference to " equilibrium". Numerous people have asked
you to define or at least explain your usage of the term. So far,
you
have not done so.Actually, you have either diverted the question, or
told questioners to do their own research. Your posts show that you
know nothing about how antennas work, and suspect very little.Why
would ARRL correct something that's perfectly fine as is???

Mike W5CHR
Memphis Tenn

Also, I would be very interested in identifying where the "weak force"
is indicated in, for example, the following point form expression of
Ampere's Law:

DEL cross H = J+ dD/dt

Frank

Frank
I am not a servant of this newsgroup. All I am doing is trying to
educate those that are willing do be educated
with respect to antennas. You for your self can read the history of
the masters and Newton to determine how they were aware of the weak
force,
its angle and size and yet cannot describe it. Even so it is included
in all calculations involved in the Universe because equilibrium is a
staple.
The fact that members of this group need to be shown that the weak
force is not fictitious is pityful . I have in the prior posting
descibed the action of radiation where previously I have stated that
the weak force is the rotary current flow which as well as the rest of
the details given are preordained by Newtons law. Prove Newton is
wrong and you have my attention.
Nothing personal
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ............xg

-

Oh yeah! Newton was also wrong that light needed a medium through which
to
travel (which he called, "aether").

We are talking ab out radiation not the eather.

The law I am referring to is every action has an opposite reaction.
It is a very short law that has not been disproven.
Application of that law states that for a radiator not in equilibrium
a charge is moving on the outside of the radiator THEREFORE
there is a charge moving in the centre of the radiator in the opposite
direction.
So simple Why do hams reject it? No, the charge at the centre is not
and cannot radiate
You don't need a lot of posts, sneers insults e.t.c. to respond just
go to your nearest University
and provide the statement to the Dean and then bring his response back
to all of us
Art

-

First off, I did not intend to have my post interpretd as a sneer. I'm
sorry if you took it that way. I said, "Oh yeah!" because I thought of the
point after I submitted a previous post.

The equal and opposite reaction law only applies when there is mass.
Electromagnetic radiation has no mass. Therefore, the law does not apply.

Radiation has no mass? You just made that up

-

No, actually, a little fella named Albert Einstein made it up. *An electron
and a positron have mass. *When they come together and annihilate, they turn
into pure energy (two 511 KeV photons travelling in opposite directions if I
remember right), which has no mass. *That's what E=MC^2 predicted; and
that's what happens in certain radioactive decays all the time. *Positrons
get produced by the deceleration of neutrons which come too close to the
nucleus of an atom with large mass. *They then annihilate when coming close
to an electron. *This is just one example.

Radiation has no mass and is, therefore, not subject to Newton's laws. *A
link to a simple explanation at a physics department of a university is:

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritt.../energy/nature...

From that site (and also what I learned in college physics) is: *". . . a
bundle of energy called a "photon" is released. However, particles of light
differ from particles of matter: they have no mass, occupy no space, and
travel at the speed of light. . ."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

wrote:

...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? Any URLs? Any quotes from famous
physicists? Any psychics? Have you consulted Art? again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 9:57*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? *How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? *Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? *Any URLs? *Any quotes from famous
physicists? *Any psychics? *Have you consulted Art? *again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? *I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! *looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

wrote:

...
I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

Really?

Then your mind is so limited it doesn't realize that a black hole would
warp the very fabric of space/time itself, and therefore the wave
propagating though it, and therefore the wave would have to choice but
purse a course towards it? ... yanno', I suspected just that thing!

Regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 10:23*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

Really?

Then your mind is so limited it doesn't realize that a black hole would
warp the very fabric of space/time itself, and therefore the wave
propagating though it, and therefore the wave would have to choice but
purse a course towards it? ... yanno', I suspected just that thing!

Regards,
JS

Right. Black holes have high gravity. Gravity warps space. Light can
travel only through the boundaries of space, therefore light has mass.
No need to say space-time, "space" is sufficient. The discussion may
be quantum related but it is not relativistic.

On Sep 16, 9:17*pm, wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:57*pm, John Smith wrote:



wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? *How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? *Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? *Any URLs? *Any quotes from famous
physicists? *Any psychics? *Have you consulted Art? *again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? *I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! *looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-) Partly correct The big bang was an explosion
thus Newton states there must be an implosion. The law is Universal

wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 9:57 pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
Correction: Photons have no rest mass. "radiated" photons have the
properties of mass because they are affected by gravitation. Light can
be bent by large bodies of mass.

Oh sure, they have a "perceived mass", don't they?; I mean, we seem to
be able to measure it, don't we? How do you know it "exists ALL ITS
TRAVEL TIME", what makes you think it is not constantly oscillating for
energy to mass ... and it is ONLY the average of that which we are
REALLY measuring ... can you prove that, well, CAN YOU? Can you provide
any relevant data here to prove it? Any URLs? Any quotes from famous
physicists? Any psychics? Have you consulted Art? again-innocent-smile

But then, you ever try to run along side of one of those photons and
measure it? I mean, this is how you really gain a critics respect
(heck, you'd even gain acknowledgment from the arrl, well,
most-likely--well, I think you would--IMHO anyway, etc.) -- now, the
question to separate the men from the boys -- now, have you?
pleasant-innocent-smile

Geesh! looks-out-window

Regards,
JS

I should have used black holes as my example. One only needs to accept
that black holes exist in order to believe that gravity affects the
property of mass inerent in light ;-)

-

Maybe it's not gravity that bends the light that comes near black holes.
Maybe it's something more sinister like extremely strong magnetic forces. .
.. Maybe I just don't have the faith necessary to believe in black holes
(tongue firmly in cheek).