Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And
anyone who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the
ripple tank should be able to immediately predict what Art is
describing. But I suppose the experiment and its results might prove
enlightening for those readers who didn't take high school physics and
who are nearly completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.


Sorry, Roy, that experiment won't be possible. The bathtub is
permanently occupied by the wannabee Archimedes.



--

73 from Ian GM3SEK

On Apr 11, 3:21*am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
I don't see Art's postings except as they're quoted by others. But from
what I'm seeing here, it looks like he's done a great experiment which
graphically shows that radio waves don't act like particles. More
experiments along this line weren't really necessary, since it's been
known at least since Hertz's experiments in the 19th century. And
anyone who took high school physics and watched the ripples in the
ripple tank should be able to immediately predict what Art is
describing. But I suppose the experiment and its results might prove
enlightening for those readers who didn't take high school physics and
who are nearly completely unacquainted with electromagnetics.

Sorry, Roy, that experiment won't be possible. The bathtub is
permanently occupied by the wannabee Archimedes.

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK

Ian
Both you and Roy project to the World that you are both experts with
respect to radiation. You write articles and both have had the
position of magazine advisors so I can assume that you feel you have a
firm grasp in physics or a good collection of books that you can
resort to for answers. The fact that both of you deny the mathematics
given by Gauyss and Maxwell is a constant surprise to me even tho a
mathematics person from MIT showed all the validity Of what I have
stated. Physics books revolve around Maxwell's laws and show many
instances where other laws
contribute to providing validity his and Newton's laws. Now I provide
another instance
where Gauss also provide validity to Maxwell's laws which have been
confirmed by independent sources. Yet Richard with a major in English
decided the mathematics supplied is in error and both of you, with the
masses, followed in lockstep yet both of you have degrees in the
subject at hand! Why is it that nobody with experience in physics has
come forward to prove me wrong ? Why do both of you refuse to provide
supporting evidence? Yes, you can come forward to discuss SWR and
similar things
yet your absence in not proving me in error is some what amasing. Both
of you tell the group why you cannot substantiate the mathematics
supplied with respect to radiation.If your mathematics or physics are
not up to it why not quote independent sources? Your stances are very
similar to when you worked with magazines that fooled the world with
respect to antenna gain on behalf of gain to manufactures.
This newsgroup is for the edification and advancement of antenna
knowledge to hams and yet both of you are instrumental in hiding the
truth and thus have descended to Richard's level in the destruction
of advancement in favour of projecting derision in place of knowledge.
Years ago Roy stated he would go to the ends of the Earth to destroy
old housewives tails to clarify the science of radio communication but
for some reason he cannot, or will not, prove this to be one of the
same.
For the others, consult your teachers or professors or others skilled
in the art and ask them the one simple question. Does the addition of
a time varying field to the arbritary border of Gauss which contain
static particles in equilibrium equal to and verify the laws
established by Maxwell? Simple straight forward question which is
denied by this group without possesion of the required facts that
establishes their position.