Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff wrote:
It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went
out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known
Middle
English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer.

In what English is the King James version of the
Bible written?

If you can understand it, it's Modern English.
Here's an example of Anglo Saxon English (Olde English for
Art): "Se halige Andreas him to cwaeth: 'Thine stefne ic gehiere, ac
ic ne wat hwaer thu art.'" Since Art knows "Olde English" he can
translate it for you.
Here's an example of Middle English from Robert Manning of Brunne's,
_Handlyng Synne_: "Ther were twey men of holy wyl That levyd togedyr
withouten yl, Alone in an ermytage, And as meke as bryd in kage; The
toon men call Eutycyus, The touther hyght Florentius."
(In both examples I substituted 'th' for the old thorn character.)
Hope this helps.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went
out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known
Middle
English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer.

In what English is the King James version of the
Bible written?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Early Modern (or Renaissance) English, just like Shakespear.

Jeff

Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:43:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I have re-translated "The Bible".

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

If you write like you are stoned, does that make you an adulterer?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?


No!

King's (Queen's) English is used to describe 'correct' English, as opposed
to slang or poor grammar etc..

The English in the King James Bible is correctly described as Early Modern
(or Renaissance) English.

73
Jeff

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer
is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him
drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Apr 11, 6:28*am, "Dave" wrote:


Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism
he just gave up. *You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American
education. *I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism
wherever it is that you hail from.

73, ac6xg

no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other
suckers he could get to agree with him. *check out:http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz
but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there.

Good grief.. :/ I read through about 75% of that.. You can't debate
a subject
with Art. Tom asks him to simply show one device he has designed using
this new fangled Gaussian theory, then Art claims Tom is "dissing"
him,
kicking sand in his face, or whatever other assault Art conjures up in
his
mind. :/

But he also alters facts to suit his whim, conjures non events out of
the
thin air, and other feats of internet skill.
He whines because we ask him to define how he uses the term
equilibrium
in respect to antennas.
But then he runs off to web page Q and whines that everyone asks him
the definition of the word itself.. This is an oft used tactic of many
that
wish to confuse the audience at hand.

He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from
MIT
laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory.
This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange
and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all.
In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the
great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again.
And he never gave any math at all as far as Art's design.
So this event can be labeled as "the big lie" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm all for antenna experimentation, but after several years of
tinkering I have learned a couple of things.
And so far they have never been proved wrong. Even by Art, or
even the great wizard from MIT.

#`1 There is no free lunch.
#2 You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.

Art claims to do both, but as always, refuses to provide a working
model that can be tested against known benchmark antennas,
or he provides a design which does not work as claimed.
Like the short "contra wound" contraption I've seen a picture of.
He claims it is a viable antenna for 160m, and will be quite
efficient.
Heck, I don't even have to test it. I can just look at it and tell
you it will be a dud compared to any decent antenna.
But this is OK. It's not my design, and it's not my job to prove
the design actually works.
That is Art's job, but Art refuses to do it.

If I had a design, I would want to test it against antennas with
known properties. Art refuses. This is why he thinks many of
these off the wall theories and designs work.
He will never actually do the tests to confirm the performance.
I bet he doesn't even have any reference antennas on his
property, like say a 160m dipole, or a 1/4 wave monopole.
How can one advocate a design or theory without even testing it?

To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. :/
That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

You can't translate something you don't read or understand. The media often
does something like that, it is called "commentary" or roughly translated:
"subterfuge", "lying" or "manipulation" depending on the intent.

BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation
isn't required.

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:32:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from
MIT
laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory.
This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange
and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all.
In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the
great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again.

Hi Mark,

Just to balance this (and it is like trying to balance a stack of
crystal champagne glasses on a trampoline), Art's MIT galahad wandered
into the word game of Art's. The term Gauss' Law exists in the math
of Maxwell's equations (and Art will probably stop reading at this
observation to crow vindication).

Maxwell took the static law of Gauss and applied a time variable (what
Art claims is his own invention) AND then Maxwell named his elaborated
mathematics "Gauss' Law."

Our MIT galahad jumped ship when I pointed out that his own reference
made this same point in terminology and described its derivation
exactly as I have above. To give credit to the unfortunate galahad,
Maxwell's form of "Gauss' Law" is perfectly good math (duh), and what
Art describes is close enough if you ignore his juvenile chest
thumping over his intellectual property rights (dick waving).

We have since seen this word salad Art's offered garnished with
particals seasoned with a weekend farce.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

JB wrote:
BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation
isn't required.

That contradicts the Old Testament. Which is true?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com