On May 3, 4:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message

...

*Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. *though it started out as being because of
the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is probably
more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the north vs
south hemispheres? *and what happens at the poles and equator, are they
straight up or horizontal??

Yes you are correct David. Coriolis effect is well known where as the
weak force is not
because of resistance to change. The Coriolis effect can be observed
by looking in the toilet bowl in the different parts of our Earth.
Whether the change over effect observations alignes with the equator I
do not know as I am now home in Illinois and have no wish to travel
more today
.. As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 4:57 pm, "Dave" wrote:
As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics

oh, so the displacement 'current' is now the weak 'force'... please explain
how those units match up, and also how the observed range of the weak force
coincides with the wide ranging effects of the displacement current.
..

On May 3, 5:36*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 3, 4:57 pm, "Dave" wrote:

As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics

oh, so the displacement 'current' is now the weak 'force'... please explain
how those units match up, and also how the observed range of the weak force
coincides with the wide ranging effects of the displacement current.
.

You really enjoy playing the simple person. You don't find the weak
force as believable but do find Coriolis effect believable so I gave
you what you desire,
something to believe in. The basic level of time in physics is based
on the speed for a capaciter to release all its energy which is then
replaced by a magnetic field. In other words time refers to the time a
magnetic field is formed by one of the standard models
forces. When a you have a tank circuit a symbol of resonance, the
energy created by the magnetic field is really the effect of that
energy called displacement current which flow in a circular motion at
and below the maximum diameter of the radiator.
This force provides an elevating force to unbound particles at rest on
a diamagnetic surface which meets the definition of a accellerated
charge. The speed of this particle is the energy applied on impact
during the formation of the magnetic field or energy release from a
capacitor. As the unbound electron constitutes the unbound particle
the energy is enough to project the particle with spin where gravity
does not have a measured effect on it's trajectory. Gravity is the
weakest force known despite it's name and the unbound electron is
considered the physical smallest mass that exists in the Universe.
So David you have the answer as to what the "weak force" is and what
energy it contains in measurable terms that it imparts to a particle.
This IS included in Maxwell's laws where there is the reference to
time. Physics is physics.
David, I am getting very close to plonking you as you show no
indication of benefit from the answers you demand of me and others.
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 5:36 pm, "Dave" wrote:

You really enjoy playing the simple person. You don't find the weak
force as believable but do find Coriolis effect believable so I gave
you what you desire, something to believe in.

i don't find the coriolis effect to be believable in causing tilted antennas
either, but its more fun to talk about that than the weak force. i find the
image of watching your antenna spiral down a toilet drain amusing.

The basic level of time in physics is based
on the speed for a capaciter to release all its energy which is then
replaced by a magnetic field.

so now you can define time in terms of time, sounds like another circular
argument to me. it takes time to discharge and that defines time... why
doesn't the time it takes to rotate the earth define time? that is more
sensible and has been known to man for much longer than discharging
capacitors.

On May 5, 5:33*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 3, 5:36 pm, "Dave" wrote:

You really enjoy playing the simple person. You don't find the weak
force as believable but do find Coriolis effect believable so I gave
you what you desire, something to believe in.

i don't find the coriolis effect to be believable in causing tilted antennas
either, but its more fun to talk about that than the weak force. *i find the
image of watching your antenna spiral down a toilet drain amusing.

The basic level of time in physics is based
on the speed for a capaciter to release all its energy which is then
replaced by a magnetic field.

so now you can define time in terms of time, sounds like another circular
argument to me. *it takes time to discharge and that defines time... why
doesn't the time it takes to rotate the earth define time? *that is more
sensible and has been known to man for much longer than discharging
capacitors.

Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the Earth's medium where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

Art Unwin wrote:
Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency.

This is true for orbital electrons but not true for
free electrons as exist in conductors like copper
and aluminum. Free electrons can emit photons of any
frequency. We change the transmitting frequency of
the photons by adjusting our VFOs to virtually
limitless frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 5:33 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the Earth's medium where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

only 3 colors eh? if the particles can only carry one of 3 frequencies how
do they generate 160m frequencies? 80m frequencies?? the whole range of
hf, vhf, uhf, mf, lf, etc, etc, etc... the whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves can't come from just 3 basic frequencies.

On May 6, 5:54*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On May 5, 5:33 pm, "Dave" wrote:

Because the magnetic field produced launches the particle which
travels at the speed of light by impact. This is the basic metric of
time. A particle emits light when it's momentum changes. Particles
carry just one color which is a measure of its frequency. There are
only three colors available but together they form the basics of all
colours. Colors emitted can be seen in the Northern lights as the
momentum changes of particles entering the *Earth's medium *where they
come to rest as unbound electrons on diamagnetic surfaces.
Hawkins is in hospital at the moment so you can't chat with him

only 3 colors eh? if the particles can only carry one of 3 frequencies how
do they generate 160m frequencies? *80m frequencies?? *the whole range of
hf, vhf, uhf, mf, lf, etc, etc, etc... the whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves can't come from just 3 basic frequencies.

I don't know about waves but my understanding is that all colors come
from the mixing
of the three basic colors, or is it four? When you mix frequencies I
would imagine you could arrive at all possible frequencies. I think
you should drop the idea of waves with respect to frequency. If you
observe a rainbow how many basic colors are there in the mix! In a
projector isn't there just three filters required for a movie in
color? One thing you have to get into your mind is the idea of basic
temperature and mass without energy. the case prior to the big bang.
The temperature aspect is very important input
of the inpact of energy at the initial stage where decelleration of a
particle in a changing medium generates a change in temperature which
is also synonimous with particle temperature. You are for ever
compartmentizing every thing as if there are no connections to be had
as per G.U.T. or more to the point static versus dynamic fields.
You are way to quick to say that you can't and should listen to OBAMA
who states yes we can.

Art Unwin wrote:

On May 3, 4:57Â*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message

...

Hi Art,
Can you reference a professional journal that confirms this Coriolis (I
believe that is the correct spelling) effect w/ respect to tipped
verticals - or is this something only you have discovered?

thats one of art's discoveries. Â*though it started out as being because
of the weak force instead of the coriolis effect, i think coriolis is
probably more believable... but do you have to tip them different in the
north vs south hemispheres? Â*and what happens at the poles and equator,
are they straight up or horizontal??

Yes you are correct David. Coriolis effect is well known where as the
weak force is not
because of resistance to change. The Coriolis effect can be observed
by looking in the toilet bowl in the different parts of our Earth.
Whether the change over effect observations alignes with the equator I
do not know as I am now home in Illinois and have no wish to travel
more today

Here is further documentation on the Coriolis effect.
http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.asp


. As for reference in professional papers take note of equations for
displacement current as stated by Maxwell which I refer to as "the
weak force" that Einstein spent so much time in looking for without
success. This force is one of the four forces alluded to in The
Standard Model of physics