"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 11, 3:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote:

Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer.

Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's
equations.
or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak
force
interactions (besides your own posts of course).

reply garbage off topic snipped... you are worse than a politician art...
answer the question. show me a program that uses the weak force. i will
guarantee you that nec and ao DO NOT use the weak force. keep searching,
quote the manual, don't make your own assumptions based on what you believe.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Dave wrote:
show me a program that uses the weak force.

Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get
united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's?
In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 12, 5:54*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
show me a program that uses the weak force.

Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get
united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's?
In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable?
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

Yes tho some use the term electroweak incorrectly as equal to the weak
force aloneinstead of the combination force ( I may have described
that incorrectly).
Some have now reduced the number of forces down to three where some
also infere
that it can be reduced to one.( gravity being a subset of
electromagnetism) Problem is that electroweak bundles the mathematical
terms
as if the weak force is the only other action whereas the weak force
is a bundling of all mathematical factors( a constant by any other
name)
required in addition to the other forces to allow all forces to sum to
zero.(Newton) I have not seen anything that quantifies the eddy
current
as being equal in itself as being equal to the missing vector but then
science has not found the weak force to prove that it is in singular
form and equal to the vector required for equilibrium. If somebody
would pick up my theorem that could easily be solved by taking the
periphary of the eddy current traveling at the speed of light
(frrequency dependant)
Regards
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 12, 3:47*pm, "Frank" wrote:
Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length.

Frank
Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!.
When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges
moving to the ends of the radiator

The charges (electrons) do not realy move. *They vibrate
at the applied E-field frequency. *The charge displacement,
depending on frequency; for example at 10 MHz, is of the
order of 10 atomic diameters -- approximately 2*10^(-9) m.http://www.geocities.com/ferman30/AtomsDimTable.html

Frank

Correct but only if the equilibrium rule is respected
other wise it does move in line with the applied current
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

On Nov 12, 6:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:47*pm, "Frank" wrote:

Current is always zero at the end of a radiator of any length.

Frank
Maybe Frank but it never came to a stop!!!!.
When you look at it as not being equilibrium one must show the sharges
moving to the ends of the radiator

The charges (electrons) do not realy move. *They vibrate
at the applied E-field frequency. *The charge displacement,
depending on frequency; for example at 10 MHz, is of the
order of 10 atomic diameters -- approximately 2*10^(-9) m.http://www.geocities.com/ferman30/AtomsDimTable.html

Frank

Correct but only if the equilibrium rule is respected
other wise it does move in line with the applied current
Art

Would also like to point ouyt that we have bound electrons as part of
the diamagnetic
material of the radiator the other is an unbound electron or particle
that resides on the surface of the diagmatic
material. It is the charge of this unbound particle we are talking
about when levitated by the eddy current aqnd not the electons that
are bound within the material
Art

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 5:54 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
show me a program that uses the weak force.

Didn't the weak force and the electromagnetic force get
united into the "electroweak" force in the late 60's?
In which case, aren't the two forces interchangable?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

only at temperatures over 10^15K... see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider them
the same.

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Nov 11, 3:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Nov 10, 7:58 pm, "Frank" wrote:

Knowing that modern day computor programs were formulated
around Maxwells laws
THAT INCLUDE THE WEAK FORCE it would appear an overcheck of the
equilibrium factor should appear when using an optimizer.

Art, show me ONE program that uses the weak force with maxwell's
equations.
or ONE reference to maxwell's equations that say they include the weak
force
interactions (besides your own posts of course).

reply garbage off topic snipped... you are worse than a politician art...
answer the question. show me a program that uses the weak force. i will
guarantee you that nec and ao DO NOT use the weak force. keep searching,
quote the manual, don't make your own assumptions based on what you
believe.



you know, it took me a while, but i have finally figured out art. art is a
politician, and worse than that, he is a democrat. all that talk about
equilibrium should have tipped me off earlier! art is all for the weak
(force) and wants to get everything into equilibrium by taking away from the
strong and giving to the weak. He is also excellent at not answering
questions as most of you may have noticed. his slipperyness is only topped
by our new president, maybe art has been taking lessons from the big chicago
politicians in how not to get pinned down. Just think about it, who else
but a politician could go on this long doing nothing but asserting beliefs,
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. politicians do
that all the time, they live on repeating sound bites and bumper sticker
slogans for years never saying any more than a dozen words on any particular
topic... and the more they get pressed the more they fall back on the same
repetitive statements. art does exactly the same thing, always falling back
on 'equilibrium', can't you just picture that as a bumper sticker?!?! maybe
if he repeats it long enough he will get voted into some big science post
and get a big grant, after all, if it gets repeated enough if must be right!

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Dave wrote:
so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider them
the same.

How can you possibly believe that the universe was
9 billion years old in earth years before earth
years even existed? We *are* living just after the
big bang.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
so if you are living just after the big bang maybe you could consider
them the same.

How can you possibly believe that the universe was
9 billion years old in earth years before earth
years even existed? We *are* living just after the
big bang.

Cecil:

I can be a bit dense, yanno?

Could you elaborate a bit ... I lost you somewhere? I mean I understand
time could not be measured in earth years before the earth existed ...
but after it did exist (and we invented time based on its' spinning)
can't we just extrapolate backwards? Or, what?

Regards,
JS

"Unwashed" hams and "washed" hams
 

John Smith wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit ... I lost you somewhere? I mean I understand
time could not be measured in earth years before the earth existed ...
but after it did exist (and we invented time based on its' spinning)
can't we just extrapolate backwards? Or, what?

As you know, relativistic effects change the length of
seconds. Just after the Big Bang, everything must have
been traveling close to the speed of light. (The inflation
of the universe is supposed to have happened at much faster
than the speed of light.) But what if seconds were
simply extremely long due to velocity. As the particles
slowed down, seconds got shorter until today we have the
shortest second ever to exist - shorter than it was
yesterday. Now take today's short second, lay them end
to end, and extrapolate the age of the universe. You
get a number that is much too large. Conceptually, but
not to scale:

BB|------------------------------------|first second ...
.... |--|today's second

What if the first second was actually one trillion of
our present-day seconds? Extrapolation would lead to
an error of 12 magnitudes in the length of that first
second.

Not only are there time effects - there are also space
effects. Things are not getting farther away from each
other - light-years are getting longer as we speak, i.e.
space itself is expanding, i.e. the standard meter in
the National Bureau of Standards is getting longer as
we speak.

What happens when me measure the light frequency of
distant galaxies while, during the travel of that
light, light-years were getting longer and seconds
were getting shorter? Hint: same thing that happens
when the time base knob on an oscilloscope gets loose
and slips. (That actually happened to me and the
result was an epiphany about space/time.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com