Ed Cregger wrote:

Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a
wave is made clear.
Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the
atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles
unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the
atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity
flight.

I don't believe in waves moving through ether. I believe there is a
field around a radiator, exactly like the glow around a light bulb.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:

Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a
wave is made clear.
Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the
atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles
unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the
atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity
flight.

I don't believe in waves moving through ether. I believe there is a field
around a radiator, exactly like the glow around a light bulb.

------------

Sorry, Dave. I did not write that text.

Allegedly, scientists have determined that the very foundation of our
universe is made of something that they call "quantum foam". Tiny sub
particles that pop into and then out of existence. To me, this is just
another way of saying "the aether".

Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:
Allegedly, scientists have determined that the very foundation of our
universe is made of something that they call "quantum foam". Tiny sub
particles that pop into and then out of existence. To me, this is just
another way of saying "the aether".

Apparently Einstein agreed with you.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ed Cregger wrote:
Allegedly, scientists have determined that the very foundation of our
universe is made of something that they call "quantum foam". Tiny sub
particles that pop into and then out of existence. To me, this is just
another way of saying "the aether".

Apparently Einstein agreed with you.

Yes, I suspect both of you are correct ... it peeves me, and NOT
SLIGHTLY, I can't even get my mind "wrapped about that."

But then, neither can you! :-P

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
But then, neither can you! :-P

The quantum foam is still seething following the Big
Bang. It is akin to an explosion that has not yet
run its course.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

On Nov 5, 8:44*am, Dave wrote:
Ed Cregger wrote:
Well Richard I don't go along with that unless the definition of a
wave is made clear.
Some see a wave likened to a part of a cobwebb m oving in the
atmosphere. Other see a wave as a group of particles
unconnected but moving in unison with other particles thru the
atmosphere. I go with the particle aproach in a counter gravity
flight.

I don't believe in waves moving through ether. *I believe there is a
field around a radiator, exactly like the glow around a light bulb.

David
Nothing wrong with that as we are looking at the exchange of energy
as with a tank circuit, I don't think there is any disagreement with
at, it is where the subject
of communication fits in.
Observation shows that communication density varies with the state of
the Sun and scientists
have recognised particles on Earth that comes from the Sun. We also
know that communication exists in a straight line
so one must determine how such a thing can be created. We all know
there are four forces at work in our Universe
so it is essential that they are fully understood when we study
radiation such that existing facts are corroborated.
So David now you have established that there is a sort of glow in your
mind around a antenna you have only established a possible starting
point
of your study. I have put forward a replication of radiation based on
scrap sorting procedures that match the tank circuit phenomina and
applied it to the subject of radiation where I account for all the
four forces where straight line projection is maintained so why is
this such a problem to hams?
Regards
Art