On Apr 11, 11:33*am, "Tom Donaly" 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.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Art has probably been led astray by reading popular accounts of the
wave-particle duality ideas of quantum mechanics. A little reading can
be a dangerous thing.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom
If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

It is all in connecting the dots.

If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. If it is not logical, it is
not Gauss' fault. If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. If it
doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.

If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
standing behind the curtain?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Apr 11, 1:13*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

It is all in connecting the dots. *

If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. *If it is not logical, it is
not Gauss' fault. *If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. *If it
doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.

If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
standing behind the curtain?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Don't send 73s to me!
I am married with children and have no inclination to
have people such as you in my friendship group. I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction. You are a troubled man with
endless posts that contain nothing about antennas and only reveal
yourself to others like you exactly who you are, as well as your
needs. Majoring in the english language by suplimentation of the years
spent at sea does nothing to enhance your knowledge of physics. You
are what you appear to be, a fraud that is also wired different from
others in search in those of your own kind that are conditioned to
attack the norm. I suggest you go back to live with your shipmates
again where you were happy and desired.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction.

Yes Arthru,

We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. Testosterone
deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
technical discussion. It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
should certainly hesitate to offer

88's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC ;-)

OR

You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Which of these "wires" conducts?

On Apr 11, 2:00*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction.

Yes Arthru,

We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. *Testosterone
deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
technical discussion. *It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
should certainly hesitate to offer

88's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC * *;-)

OR

You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Which of these "wires" conducts?

You have never debated ! You have only attacked others. If you kept to
antennas
how you are wired would not have mattered as it goes along with the
title of this newsgroup. You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
doctorate being denigrated by an english major! No wonder the
technically advantaged don't stay long on this newsgroup
Why not have a debate with Cecil where you can supply facts instead
of attacks in a debate about phase changes with the facts you learned
from Shakesphere, I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
legged mesh pants as
you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
....

You have never debated !

That is for the hooded monks who utter prayers as they beat religion
into those who are not converted.

You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
doctorate being denigrated by an english major!

You make him sound like a milk-sop whimpering in the street. (For all
your breast-beating tears for his plight, can't you at least remember
his name?) According to you, your leviathan of intellect whose shadow
you stand in has been trounced by a swish who studied English! I like
how you mince through your charges of brutality to then daintily wedge
the gay-baiting into your invective:
I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
legged mesh pants as
you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.
You really have an over-active imagination that keeps returning to
these curious fantasies. You spend more effort pruning these little
bouquets than actually staying on topic. What you choose to focus on
is entirely up to you. Let's see how you handle:

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!
Can you respond to the technical content of its conflict with your
next statement:
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

I don't mind if you abandon your own claims to their poverty, no one
else will hug these destitute urchins either.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.

the simplest form to put in words is: the divergence of E is proportional
to the charge density. the constant of proportionality depends on the units
chosen of course. This is exactly the form used in Maxwell's equations for
time varying fields.

On Apr 11, 1:52*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.

the simplest form to put in words is: *the divergence of E is proportional
to the charge density. *the constant of proportionality depends on the units
chosen of course. *This is exactly the form used in Maxwell's equations for
time varying fields.

Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.
All these years of denial without supporting evidence. You couldn't
provide such to
the guy( A doctorate no less) from MIT to convince him he was wrong
either.
David you over estimate your abilities. Richard Harrison who spent his
life with
Radio America finally went back to the books and then apologised for
backing your position because his books backed my position . You
graduated many many years ago and failed to keep up. Now science has
overtaken you. Remember your comment?
Statics has nothing to do with with radiation.
Proof given, nothing other than you said so. And you chose to
follow the wierdo Richard in the attack. And Roy and others followed
in line like lemons. Perhaps you and I should have a talk on top band
where you can verbally deny that I have a rotatable antenna to your
cohorts and where they in the same tone demand more information or
proof.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.

unfortunately this media restricts us to words, but any phd worth his salt
could reconstruct the equation in symbols from my description. does: "del
dot E = rho" make it any clearer? if not, look up page 33 of the 2nd
edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics. and then compare that with
the statement of maxwell's equations on page 2.

On Apr 11, 2:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, "Dave" wrote:

Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.

unfortunately this media restricts us to words, but any phd worth his salt
could reconstruct the equation in symbols from my description. *does: *"del
dot E = rho" *make it any clearer? *if not, look up page 33 of the 2nd
edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics. *and then compare that with
the statement of maxwell's equations on page 2.

David look up Newtons laws and make note of the mathematics that
dictate the presence of a displacement current is used to impact with
mass at the speed of light.
Find out why Maxwell was impelled to insert it into his formue when he
could not identify or verify the legitimacy of such an insertion. He
was a mathematicion who followed the laws of mathematic which also
follows the laws of Newton.
To check his formula legitimacy he had to place his formula to one
side of the equal sign and prove that the equation equated to zero
( from the universal understanding of
cosmos equilibrium) He found that his formula did not equal zero ! So
what could he do for it to make it zero as required? He decided to
cancel out what metrics that he could and then added the extra
required metrics that would cancel out the remaining metrics. Yup the
final equation equaled zero where his insertion predicted the presence
of the weak force acting on a mass or particle.
It was years before Foucault identified what Maxwell had added and
Einstein never identified the weak force metrics that Maxwell placed
right in front of him.
Now we have antenna computer programs that are based on Maxwells laws
that include displacement current where they are programmed to change
what has been inserted to conform with Maxwells laws(optimisation
programs) and not the pre conceived planar design.
And guess what? They do reject pre conceived ideas such as the Yagi
and other planar designs that depend solely of intermagnetic coupling
and place designs that
are in agreement with Maxwell's laws which include the presence of
particlesfor maximum efficiency of radiation.
Now since the laws of Maxwell drops firmly on the side of particles
instead of waves the amateur fraternity feel compelled to discredit
computer programs such that there position is maintained and change is
not required.
And the World continues to waddle in the garbage by ignoring the
accompanying smell. My oh my.
Qudoes to this newsgroup for leading the charge against change
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)