Art Unwin wrote:
Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then
took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by
lack of knowledge of equilibrium by the average american.
I have now run into another interpretation by americans which differ
from the european aspect and that is Newtons third law with respect to
reaction . Definitions on the net view this law as an equal and
diametrically opposite force where Newton never used the word
"diametrically". English law is based on the intention provided by the
words of the law such that it becomes unchanged thru time. American
law does not define "intention" thus the law can and does change over
time creating appeals against the intent of words.
One definition of Newton's law on the net shows two skaters pushing
against each other as an illustration of the law. But Newton's
"intent" was in the olde english where "opposite" was viewed in a
different way.
If you view a helicopter the front rotor is in a horizontal plane and
rotating clockwise thus per Newton the resulting action is a rotator
at the rear that is rotating in a "vertical " plane and rotating
counter clockwise to maintain equilibrium. Another example is a
caramel bar that is placed under tension which produces a force at
right angles that narrows the cross section and the sample fails in
shear at 45 degrees ( vector resultant of the two forces)
I bring this up because of what I have stated earlier about radiation
on this newsgroup, where the applied force is electrical on a radiator
and per Newton the reaction is at right angle to that force which is
called the displacement current ( capacitive magnetic field). No
wonder Einstein gave up on the pursuit of radiation because as a
german had no understanding of olde english and thus was looking for a
equal and diametrically opposite force in his search for the "weak
force." He was correct in his prediction of it's presence with respect
to radiation but, unfortunately, was looking in the wrong place and
thus relativity was born!
Regards
Art KB9MZ....XG (uk)

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

Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then
took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by
lack of knowledge of equilibrium by the average american.
I have now run into another interpretation by americans which differ
from the european aspect and that is Newtons third law with respect to
reaction . Definitions on the net view this law as an equal and
diametrically opposite force where Newton never used the word
"diametrically". English law is based on the intention provided by the
words of the law such that it becomes unchanged thru time. American
law does not define "intention" thus the law can and does change over
time creating appeals against the intent of words.
One definition of Newton's law on the net shows two skaters pushing
against each other as an illustration of the law. But Newton's
"intent" was in the olde english where "opposite" was viewed in a
different way.
If you view a helicopter the front rotor is in a horizontal plane and
rotating clockwise thus per Newton the resulting action is a rotator
at the rear that is rotating in a "vertical " plane and rotating
counter clockwise to maintain equilibrium. Another example is a
caramel bar that is placed under tension which produces a force at
right angles that narrows the cross section and the sample fails in
shear at 45 degrees ( vector resultant of the two forces)
I bring this up because of what I have stated earlier about radiation
on this newsgroup, where the applied force is electrical on a radiator
and per Newton the reaction is at right angle to that force which is
called the displacement current ( capacitive magnetic field). No
wonder Einstein gave up on the pursuit of radiation because as a
german had no understanding of olde english and thus was looking for a
equal and diametrically opposite force in his search for the "weak
force." He was correct in his prediction of it's presence with respect
to radiation but, unfortunately, was looking in the wrong place and
thus relativity was born!
Regards
Art KB9MZ....XG (uk)

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




Not to mention the fact that Newton wrote his laws of motion in Latin,
and not in "olde english" (whatever that is). Art is fantasizing again.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Not to mention the fact that Newton wrote his laws of motion in Latin, and
not in "olde english" (whatever that is). Art is fantasizing again.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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. Modern English had been in
use and developing since the 1500's, and by the time that Newton was
postulating his theories in the late 1600's Modern English was that language
of the day. However, scientific papers were written in Latin as this gave
them a universal coverage amongst the scientific population.

Regards
Jeff

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

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

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 -

"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.