"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
So the question remains where does a photon come from if it is not an
internal function of a free electron. Frankly the capacitor suggests
that the photon is a charge possesed by
a free electron.

photons have no charge.

So again we are back to the Gauss/Maxwell question.

separate guass and maxwell. gauss wrote laws, maxwell made a collection of
equations and tied them all together... some of which were written
originally by gauss. the basic laws that went into maxwell's collection
have been well proven separately for over a century, and as a collection to
explain electromagnetic waves almost as long. but note that maxwell does
not talk about particles, his equations describe fields and waves. They do
contain terms for charge, but do not tie it to any given particle... and if
you include the force equation then you can talk about mass and charge, but
again not tied to any specific particle.

Einstein insinuated that the weak force is part of radiation and I
have applied my theorem to that.

ah, so that is where you have crossed up the weak for and radiation...
unfortunately the radiation being described in relation to the weak force is
not electromagnetic radiation, but rather radiation caused by nuclear
decay... most often beta decay where the nucleus emits an electron and
converts a neutron to a proton and an anti-neutrino. hmm, do anti-neutrinos
cancel out your magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos?

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
Take a rest in reading and look at the oryginal Hertz apparatus as the two
sources of longitudinal waves (radiated from ends). You should see the
Luxembourg effect (frequency doubling) and directional pattern.
S*

but you don't because that is not how it works. the waves are radiated by
the whole length of the connecting wire and are transverse... there is no
frequency doubling as you explain it.

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

because art is the consummate Democrat... he thinks that if he believes
something then it must be true and its up to everyone else to prove him
wrong. just look at the Democrat's belief that throwing money at education
will result in better educated students... that has been going wrong for
decades and they still believe it. art also shares another quality with
Democrats, they don't learn. They keep doing the same things over and over
again expecting to get different results... isn't that a thing called
insanity?

On Sep 5, 7:09*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 6:37 pm, "christofire" wrote:

It is conceivable that the Coriolis effect may act upon EM radiation.
But given the speed of propagation of the radiowaves the effect would
truly be miniscule. I Art thinks the rotation of the earth has any
significant effect on EM propagation he should show some reference. Im
not going to hold my breath until that happens.

the key with the coriolis effect is that the earth turns under something
that is moving north or south at different rates. *it doesn't affect what is
moving, that still follows normal physics... so basically something launched
from the equator going north will have a higher velocity to the east than an
observer north of it so it will appear to bend to the east. *it really
didn't, its just that the observer didn't move fast enough to keep up with
it. *that is why it is an 'effect' and not a 'force'. *the object travels in
a normal ballistic path as if the earth wasn't there once it leaves the
launching point... so if you shine your laser north from the equator it will
'appear' to bend east, but if it did actually follow the earth's curvature
it would only very slightly miss the north pole.

Now I understand this continuous on going babble with Art. Damn, you
guys have nothing better to do. Come to think of it thats why Im here
right now. Lets go get some sun.

Jimmie

On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 5, 6:02*pm, JIMMIE wrote:

On Sep 5, 6:37*pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

-- snip --

If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the
normal text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop
making
up your own versions!

To discower what radiates will be better to do experiments with tipping
of
monopole antenas.

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.

* I don't doubt that it is possible to obtain results from a computer
program that appear to contradict conventional theory. *Interpretation of
what comes out is always the responsibility of the operator so, whilst
anyone can enter parameter values and hit 'go', not everyone will interpret
the results correctly. *In this respect it must help greatly to have a clear
understanding of the basic principles of how antennas radiate and how the
modelling programs operate; in most cases how the moment method works. *My
recommendation, as before, is to read an edition of 'Antennas' by Kraus (or
an equivalent), cover to cover, before trying to make sense of the output of
any antenna modelling program. *Of course, I realise that some who 'publish'
here feel this would be beneath them, or too hard ... but, really, it is
neither.

My own take on the effect of tilting a vertical antenna is that if its
length is an appreciable fraction of a wavelength then tilting it will
distort its radiation pattern and will upset the uniformity of its
polarisation, which will impose a further effective radiation pattern. *If
this results in a bit of gain in one particular direction with respect to a
particular polarisation then fine, and this may be of some use in amateur
radio service although it isn't how vertical monopoles are most often used
(i.e. their omni-directional pattern is their strength and there are many
other, better ways, to obtain directional patterns).

However, the theory on which all the well-known modelling programs is based
is the simple stuff described by Kraus, et al, and probably in most cases
follows from the original work that led to NEC
(http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf). *It takes _no_ account of the
Coriolis force or gravity (outside of its impact on the speed of light). *If
such a program produces output that the operator interprets as depending on
the Coriolis force then, logically, this must be a mistake on the part of
the operator - wouldn't you agree? *However, if you believe the theory on
which the program is based is in error then maybe you shouldn't use it.

More to the point, it is common knoweledge that there is no full
understanding of radiation available anywhere. Thus he is asking probing
questions to fill in the
gaps.

* There is sufficient understanding of radiation and antennas out there, as
widely documented, to have enabled practical radio, radar, and suchlike for
more than a century. *I understand that part of the point of amateur radio
is to encourage experimentation, but I don't understand why experimenters
should wish to shun the accepted, conventional theory and try to come up
with their own, perhaps paraphysical, versions - especially when those
people don't exhibit much understanding of the basics. *Maybe they treat the
subject a bit like art (no pun intended) instead of the science that it
should be.

Personaly I am not willing yet to say antenna programs are at fault
until more explanations come about. Can you explain what he is
commenting upon.?

* It's possible he is being deliberately provocative.

Chris

It is conceivable that the Coriolis effect may act upon EM radiation.
But given the speed of propagation of the radiowaves the effect would
truly be miniscule. I Art thinks the rotation of the earth has any
significant effect on EM propagation he should show some reference. Im
not going to hold my breath until that happens.

Jimmie

I have always followed the particle approach over the EM route. *The
reason I have followed this path is that Gauss's law dictates it and
computer programs support it. There has been no move to doubt programs
so I assume they are according to Maxwell and the errors are else
where. So let's go back and leave these assertions that have been
erroniously pointed at me and look at the Gaussian/ Maxwell
observation which I have pursued. I have posted the original statement
and look for those who have expertise in the area to post their views
and why. So Jimmie you have been prolific with your thoughts and
insults, allow us to view the mechanics of what ever decision you make
whether it is a repeat of David or one that shows your own method of
thinking.
Thanks in advance
Art
Dave has posted his reasons why he feels my assertion is false- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

Jimmie the answer resides in the question posed. If you have a track
record such as a degree where you can explain academically, place your
input or be declared a follower.
2;1 against me so far but I need a couple more. So far there has been
much more that have commented but I have to sort intuition from
academics to decide on the playing field

On Sep 6, 1:21*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

So the question remains where does a photon come from if it is not an
internal function of a free electron. Frankly the capacitor suggests
that the photon is a charge possesed by
a free electron.

photons have no charge.
Could be I believe Cecil thinks otherwise but first we need to verify
the first statement made to determine what path to take. As yet
photons are not in Maxwells laws as we know it. That is Cecil,s track
without the beginning disclosed or a position on my beginning
and he has a problem with that, hopefully he comes down on my side



So again we are back to the Gauss/Maxwell question.

separate guass and maxwell. *gauss wrote laws, maxwell made a collection of
equations and tied them all together... some of which were written
originally by gauss. *the basic laws that went into maxwell's collection
have been well proven separately for over a century,

We are in agreement up to here, a drum roll please!
and as a collection to
explain electromagnetic waves almost as long.
Nope. He added to the laws dt becau8se the metrics must add up to zero
per Newton
From this addition the metrics supply a clue to accellaration of
charge

*but note that maxwell does
not talk about particles, his equations describe fields and waves.

Yes but not a explanation of the addition referring to acelaration of
charge dt

Theories alone have come along by others, waves, particles (photons)
and a little bit of both as yet none have been conclusive.

*They do
contain terms for charge, but do not tie it to any given particle..

Back again we are in agreement

.. and if
you include the force equation then you can talk about mass and charge, but
again not tied to any specific particle.

Again we are in agreement, this is terrific !


Einstein insinuated that the weak force is part of radiation and I
have applied my theorem to that.

ah, so that is where you have crossed up the weak for and radiation...
unfortunately the radiation being described in relation to the weak force is
not electromagnetic radiation,

That is a matter of contention which is why I turned to boundary laws
which exhibit all forces. The one I chose was Gaussion law of statics
to procede upon since it was the basis
for placing a weak force in position which up to that point had not
been applied.
Thus to keep in line with Maxwells laws I was forced to make a static
field dynamic
which is accepted by physics unless I want to make it a special case
as others seem to think

but rather radiation caused by nuclear
decay... most often beta decay

Well the Sun did provide these particles when equilibrium was broken
so if residue from the sun is radio active OR includes such I can
accept that. No problem


where the nucleus emits an electron and
converts a neutron to a proton and an anti-neutrino.

I have "hinted" at neutrinos because it is presently hinted that
several typed of Neutrinos (flavors are emited by the Sun) we also see
light on contact with the Aurora but I decided to hang my hat on a
particle/ free electron because a lot can happen between the Sun and
its travels to Earth.

Well now you are into theory and just like the Higgs field all are
searching for conformation
via existing laws to give some substance to particles between the sun
and the Earth!.


*hmm, do anti-neutrinos
cancel out your magical levitating diamagnetic solar neutrinos?

I have no idea. We do not know what is the difference to flavours
emmitted or their characteristics., What we do know is they enter the
earth as the smallest mass known
( from the Italian world of Enrico)
All of this starts with the Gauss/Maxwell aproach where I say you can
turn a static field into a dynamic field which is against the
perception of those on the group that are educated ,
academically.At least so far as those who are comfortable with both of
these laws.

On Sep 6, 1:27*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

because art is the consummate Democrat... he thinks that if he believes
something then it must be true and its up to everyone else to prove him
wrong. *just look at the Democrat's belief that throwing money at education
will result in better educated students... that has been going wrong for
decades and they still believe it. *art also shares another quality with
Democrats, they don't learn. *They keep doing the same things over and over
again expecting to get different results... isn't that a thing called
insanity?

No. Some of this group state what you repeat day after day, sme old
thing, is called experience.

On Sep 5, 7:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.
------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...74e9df6d9d1aa9

RF

On Sep 6, 3:02*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.

------------

The NEC computer programs are not in error. *The error is in
understanding how far-field patterns develop.

Art, please read the following link about "tipped verticals," which
hopefully will lead to a better understanding of this issue.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_threa...

RF

I thought you had trackrecord in academics so you had a understanding
of the Gauss/Maxwell laws Oh well we all make mistakes
..
Now for your eznec set up. If it were me I would not quit so early but
at least try to fill a quadrant so you can determine a step that
appears logical
A bit to early to slaughter the messenger tho it appears to be your
intention.regardless

On Sep 6, 1:16*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 5, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 5, 6:02*pm, JIMMIE wrote:

On Sep 5, 6:37*pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 5, 3:17 pm, "christofire" wrote: "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message

-- snip --

If you want to discover what radiates I suggest you read one of the
normal text books on the subject, like Kraus 'Antennas', and stop
making
up your own versions!

To discower what radiates will be better to do experiments with tipping
of
monopole antenas.

* Where do you get this stuff from? Please visit a library - you could do
yourself a lot of good.
Chris

Chris, what I believe he is referring to is that computer programs
support a tipped vertical over one at right angles to earth. Computer
programs are supposed to be based on Maxwell's formula. Is this an
error and how do we fix it. If it is not an error then it supports the
presence of the Coriolis force in collusion with gravity. and not
gravity alone.

* I don't doubt that it is possible to obtain results from a computer
program that appear to contradict conventional theory. *Interpretation of
what comes out is always the responsibility of the operator so, whilst
anyone can enter parameter values and hit 'go', not everyone will interpret
the results correctly. *In this respect it must help greatly to have a clear
understanding of the basic principles of how antennas radiate and how the
modelling programs operate; in most cases how the moment method works. *My
recommendation, as before, is to read an edition of 'Antennas' by Kraus (or
an equivalent), cover to cover, before trying to make sense of the output of
any antenna modelling program. *Of course, I realise that some who 'publish'
here feel this would be beneath them, or too hard ... but, really, it is
neither.

My own take on the effect of tilting a vertical antenna is that if its
length is an appreciable fraction of a wavelength then tilting it will
distort its radiation pattern and will upset the uniformity of its
polarisation, which will impose a further effective radiation pattern. *If
this results in a bit of gain in one particular direction with respect to a
particular polarisation then fine, and this may be of some use in amateur
radio service although it isn't how vertical monopoles are most often used
(i.e. their omni-directional pattern is their strength and there are many
other, better ways, to obtain directional patterns).

However, the theory on which all the well-known modelling programs is based
is the simple stuff described by Kraus, et al, and probably in most cases
follows from the original work that led to NEC
(http://www.nec2.org/other/nec2prt1.pdf). *It takes _no_ account of the
Coriolis force or gravity (outside of its impact on the speed of light). *If
such a program produces output that the operator interprets as depending on
the Coriolis force then, logically, this must be a mistake on the part of
the operator - wouldn't you agree? *However, if you believe the theory on
which the program is based is in error then maybe you shouldn't use it.

More to the point, it is common knoweledge that there is no full
understanding of radiation available anywhere. Thus he is asking probing
questions to fill in the
gaps.

* There is sufficient understanding of radiation and antennas out there, as
widely documented, to have enabled practical radio, radar, and suchlike for
more than a century. *I understand that part of the point of amateur radio
is to encourage experimentation, but I don't understand why experimenters
should wish to shun the accepted, conventional theory and try to come up
with their own, perhaps paraphysical, versions - especially when those
people don't exhibit much understanding of the basics. *Maybe they treat the
subject a bit like art (no pun intended) instead of the science that it
should be.

Personaly I am not willing yet to say antenna programs are at fault
until more explanations come about. Can you explain what he is
commenting upon.?

* It's possible he is being deliberately provocative.

Chris

It is conceivable that the Coriolis effect may act upon EM radiation.
But given the speed of propagation of the radiowaves the effect would
truly be miniscule. I Art thinks the rotation of the earth has any
significant effect on EM propagation he should show some reference. Im
not going to hold my breath until that happens.

Jimmie

I have always followed the particle approach over the EM route. *The
reason I have followed this path is that Gauss's law dictates it and
computer programs support it. There has been no move to doubt programs
so I assume they are according to Maxwell and the errors are else
where. So let's go back and leave these assertions that have been
erroniously pointed at me and look at the Gaussian/ Maxwell
observation which I have pursued. I have posted the original statement
and look for those who have expertise in the area to post their views
and why. So Jimmie you have been prolific with your thoughts and
insults, allow us to view the mechanics of what ever decision you make
whether it is a repeat of David or one that shows your own method of
thinking.
Thanks in advance
Art
Dave has posted his reasons why he feels my assertion is false- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art, it would be nice if you posted reason to why you think your
assertions are true instead of just posting random assertions. Why
should I waste my effort trying to explain why you are wrong when you
refuse to make any effort to show why you are right.

Jimmie

If you have the academic background then post at the point of the
problem. If not enjoy the Sun