Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics only in your mind. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions and not three which requires the dimension of time. best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never was and never will be. unlike your thinking art. Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or equilibrium. the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control the universe. nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we would all be cold dark cinders. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics only in your mind. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions and not three which requires the dimension of time. best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art. Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or equilibrium. the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we would all be cold dark cinders. Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of the Cosmos as a whole You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a deeper understanding. We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David. Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! I built it and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated. Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry about that, can be attributed to a different theory. I will continue to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces, because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on QRZ antenna construction which now has over 4k hits without similar comments such as yours. Regards and best 73s Art |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Apr 18, 1:41 pm, "Dave" wrote: In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on QRZ antenna construction which now has over 4k hits without similar comments such as yours. thats obviously because its not an open forum, only people who think like you go there, so you have a captive audience. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is
only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them in terms of their physical experience. On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message .... Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics only in your mind. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions and not three which requires the dimension of time. best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art. Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or equilibrium. the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we would all be cold dark cinders. Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of the Cosmos as a whole You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a deeper understanding. We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David. Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated. Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces, because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar comments such as yours. Regards and best 73s Art- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
On Apr 30, 7:39*pm, wrote:
Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them in terms of their physical experience. On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message .... Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics only in your mind. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions and not three which requires the dimension of time. best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane.... never was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art. Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or equilibrium. the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we would all be cold dark cinders. Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of the Cosmos as a whole You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a deeper understanding. We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David. Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated. Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces, because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar comments such as yours. Regards and best 73s Art- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A lot of words. As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. So as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the window! Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. Sooooo, be my guest. I will do my best in following the trail that you have in mind that you feel is better than mine. My guess is that you have nothing in mind and are standing on sand like Andy Capp. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
On Apr 30, 10:31*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:39*pm, wrote: Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them in terms of their physical experience. On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics only in your mind. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions and not three which requires the dimension of time. best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane.... never was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art. Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or equilibrium. the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we would all be cold dark cinders. Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of the Cosmos as a whole You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a deeper understanding. We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David. Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated.. Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces, because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar comments such as yours. Regards and best 73s Art- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A lot of words. *As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. So as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the window! *Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. Sooooo, be my guest. I will do my best in following the trail that you have in mind that you feel is better than mine. My guess is that you have nothing in mind and are standing on sand like Andy Capp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Art,the only diasagreement about Gauss and Maxwell was that YOU discovered anything NEW. Most people interested in antennas or current flow are aware of the Gauss/ Maxwell connection. Jeez its High School Physics. Jimmie |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
On May 1, 12:57*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:31*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Apr 30, 7:39*pm, wrote: Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them in terms of their physical experience. On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics only in your mind. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions and not three which requires the dimension of time. best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art. Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or equilibrium. the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we would all be cold dark cinders. Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of the Cosmos as a whole You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a deeper understanding. We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David.. Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated. Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces, because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar comments such as yours. Regards and best 73s Art- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A lot of words. *As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. So as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the window! *Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. Sooooo, be my guest. I will do my best in following the trail that you have in mind that you feel is better than mine. My guess is that you have nothing in mind and are standing on sand like Andy Capp.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Art,the only diasagreement about Gauss and Maxwell was that YOU discovered anything NEW. Most people interested in antennas or current flow are aware of the Gauss/ Maxwell connection. Jeez its High School Physics. Jimmie So it has now come down to a big lie. Years ago there was total agreement on this group that the Gauss law of Statics has no connection with the laws of Maxwell. How soon you have forgotten your auguements with Dr Davis on the same subject. Now we come to a stage where the antenna and its mathematics are real and all join to say I knew that all the time or that is nothing new. All those years of discussion, which are still in the archives as witness to the big lie now turned upon it's head. What has your lieing gained you over the years? Do you now feel it has enhanced your reputation? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... A lot of words. As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. On the contrary, it was pointed out many times that Gauss's Law is one of the basic Maxwell Equations, so they are definately bound to each other. So as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the window! So as far as your understanding of the Maxwell Equations, you are straight out the window. Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. unfortunately art has strayed so far off the trail that he'll need a spiritual guide to help him back to the light of day. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
On May 1, 7:24*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... A lot of words. *As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. On the contrary, it was pointed out many times that Gauss's Law is one of the basic Maxwell Equations, so they are definately bound to each other. So as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the window! So as far as your understanding of the Maxwell Equations, you are straight out the window. Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. unfortunately art has strayed so far off the trail that he'll need a spiritual guide to help him back to the light of day. Well David I have now finished all my work on the antenna except for a couple of bells and whistle that can wait for the balmy days of summer. Swr along the frequency span is similar to that of a log periodic with a slight waveiness but that can be altered remotely quite easily as well as a couple of other things. Jim, I will be finished on the other today and will be in UPS on Monday. I will not test before hand but leave that up to you. Will E mail you later with details By the way David, the antenna will stay at ground level and I will take the one off the tower as height is not now a consideration I suppose I will now have to think about taking the tower down as it is not needed anymore which will make the wife happy. This week end is now for the wife and her birthday. After that I will exercise the new antenna with a special look out for you. Regards, your adversary Art |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Resonance and equilibrium
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... I have now finished all my work on the antenna except for a couple of bells and whistle that can wait for the balmy days of summer. Swr along the frequency span is similar to that of a log periodic with a slight waveiness but that can be altered remotely quite easily as well as a couple well, what is the beamwidth and frequency range?? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Equilibrium and Ham examinations | Antenna | |||
Equilibrium in free space | Antenna | |||
Equilibrium | Antenna | |||
Gaussian equilibrium | Antenna | |||
balun at resonance? | Antenna |