On Sep 21, 7:33*pm, "christofire" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Sep 21, 4:19 pm, "christofire" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

- - snip - -

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from *the
accellerating forces. I remind you of Newtons law of ut + 1/2 ft sqd
The first expression is for the speed attained on entering the
accelerating field and the other half is for the length of the
accelerating electrostatic field. On leaving the two fields it looses
the applied accelerating force where it has arrived at a particular
speed.Maybe you should look up the workings of a CRT using Newtons
laws instead of shooting from the hip.
It was at a different time that the speed of light was measured where
it was found to equal the sppeed emerging from two intersecting fields.

* Actually, I'm well aware of the principle involved in accelerating
electrons in an electron gun as used in CRTs, klystrons, TWTs, and so on, by
subjecting an electron cloud to a potential difference using an anode with a
hole in it (!), but that's different from what happens in an antenna.

The acceleration of charge in an antenna results almost entirely from the
applied potential difference at its terminals. *The radiated fields result
from the alternating current effectively passing through the radiation
resistance, and all the other, reactive, fields have no direct effect on the
radiation resistance, or the component of the current that passes through it
in phase with the voltage that is developed across it, which together, of
course, represent the radiated power. *The reactive fields affect the
terminal impedance and a large imaginary part can upset the device trying to
send power into the antenna, but that is more of a system issue. *The
alternating current that passes through the radiation resistance is composed
of charge that moves in time with each RF cycle, accelerating and
decelerating accordingly. *The electrostatic field developed between the
ends of a half-wave dipole reaches its maximum value a quarter of a cycle
later than the voltage at the drive point so any effect it has on the charge
in the antenna elements during each cycle must be reactive, and it doesn't
affect the radiation resistance or the radiated wave.

But all this can be looked up from any one of the respected books on
antennas. *Krauss, and others, gives expressions for the different field
components and the theory all hangs together quite readily using Maxwell's
equations without modification.

I don't care if you think me stupid, and I'll continue to try to avoid name
calling of individuals, although I may criticise what they write especially
if it appears ignorant of proper science yet attempts to re-write
established theory, and therefore appears arrogant.

Chris

No it does not appear in Kraus book. He never followed Maxwells laws
with respect to equilibrium. To do that you must think in terms of
wavelength. After all with respect to science all revolve around
boundary laws of the Universe and you blindly ignore that fact.
Now back to radiation which applies spin to a p. Nowarticle where as
with a crt no spin is applied as it is heat that separates the resting
particle Now earlier you refered to a electrostatic field that
according to what you stated did not have a border and surely you know
that just can't be unless it is in equilibrium which requires a closed
circuit.
For this to come to fruition you go back to the boundary laws where
the arbitrary border is one that is closed i.e. in equilibrium. Now
cast your mind back to the Gauss extension where radiators and
particles lie in a closed static field. Now you should see that
equilibrium must reign for a closed static field. Now you blithely
mentioned an electrostatic field with nary a mention as to how it is
formed and how it fits into the whole picture.
Why? Because the books do not provide an unbroken trail that fully
describes radiation
( books admit that) as I have done where everything dove tails into
the existing laws of the Universe. And then I gave you a bonus with
respect to the weak field that Einstein searched for in vain. Einstein
looked at the package presented by the Big Bag but omitted to keep
that which it was wrapped into. That was the arbitrary boundary around
which were forces or vectors that were equal and opposite when a
smallest of smallest of particles edged out towards the border. Yes it
was of a weak force but for all of that it broke the equilibrium
boundary as the forces at that point was not now equal. The breakage
was one where the opposing forces were offset to each other thus
providing a torque force that provided spin. Now we come to our own
Earth encased in a arbitrary border and outside the border we have the
same conditions of equilibrium that must equal the forces of the Big
Bang which means the outside has two vectors, gravity vector which is
straight and a vector denoting spin i.e. rotation of the Earth. On the
other side of the border you again have two vectors a straight vector
and that curly one you don't like me to call eddy current.
Yup. Everything falls together nicely thank you, when you study
radiation from first principles instead of binding yourself to books
that readily admit to not understanding the radiation process. Now
this is not being arrogant when one has applied all principles but I
do think it is arrogant of you and others to asasinate the character
of "S" purely because of his english and spelling and not to help one
that wants to learn.
Just think about it all. I have shown how a particle moves in space in
a straight line trajectory such that the particle maintains a straight
line without the parabolic force of gravity driving it down to the
Earth. Go back to your books and show just how the electrostatic field
came about and what was the borders that it was contained in
Art
via applied spin and where gravity

Art Unwin wrote:

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from the

Nice job on the name calling, dingbat.

So, which charged particle are you proposing is being accelerated here?
There are none that have no mass, which would mean that no particle
capable of being accelerated by an electrostatic field could exit at
"the speed of light because it has emmerged from the intersecting two
fields".

Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 21, 8:43*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.
Acceleration of the particle only occurs while within the
electrostatic field. When it exits it has the speed of light because
it has emmerged from the intersecting two fields.and thus from *the

Nice job on the name calling, dingbat.

You do it all the time TOM , no reasons, just because!


So, which charged particle are you proposing is being accelerated here?
* There are none that have no mass, which would mean that no particle
capable of being accelerated by an electrostatic field could exit at
"the speed of light because it has emmerged from the intersecting two
fields".
You are talking garbage Tom in a attempt to sound educated.
When you introduce Newtons laws you are standing on the existence of
mass.
It was a particle with mass that broke the equilibrium of the Sun
which starts the whole cycle.
This mass is debris from the burning and release of energy from the
sun which ebbs and flows according to the 11 year sun spot cycle. It
is acknowledged that particles from the Universe are in the billions
per cubic meter in the Earths system and all these particles have
mass. The idea that neutrinos, a particle from the Sun had no mass was
dispelled years ago, so the Laws of Newton remains in place. This very
same action is shown with respect to a CRT where the particle which in
that case does not have spin. You will see that the particle is
accelerated within the borders of the electrostatic field which is
also intersected by a mgnetic field such that its path is parabolic
within the confines of the electrostatic field which becomes a
straight line travel without acelleration as it leaves the confines of
the electrostatic field. It is all quite simple Tom but you continue
to implant erronius data into the description as a basis to supply
insults.



Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool


tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 22, 10:23*am, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 22, 10:32*am, derek unwin wrote:
On Sep 22, 10:23*am, tom wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

Read before you post. Plank!

On Sep 21, 9:23*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?

There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool

So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

You could go to college and learn all this but here goes.
Planck did a treatise on heat radiation where he stated that heat
radiation
is enabled by two independent functions. First was by conduction and
the second by a ray.
He went on to enlarge on the notion of a ray when is studies moved on
to radio and light radiation. He often consulted with Einstein and was
well aware of his efforts to find the weak force and where he gave up
on that and started a new science where he came up with mc sqd,. With
the abandoned search of Einstein Planck settled hard on the idea that
light was a radiated beam or wave of sorts and it was natural of him
to see radiation of heat in a similar manner i.e a wave or ray in a
similar way that light was thought of.
In fact his work moved later to the nature of light and radio
radiation where the theme of a ray or wave was retained. If Einstein
had included the wrappings of the Big Bang in his studies particles
would have retained the high ground for both him and Planck.
as well as this group together with science which has been misled to
this very day.
Thus Planck started on the wrong track with respect to heat radiation
and all of his other studies. Now he may have known what the speed of
light was but he would see it as a ray of light the same way as a ray
of heat. It was later found independently that a particle at the exit
from the combined field intersection was the speed of light which now
can be seen as the cause of light in connection with particle speed
i.e an effect and not a cause.
Since we note that wavelengths can denote a change of color the
connection of wavelength, spin ,deccelleration or what ever, directly
relates to the emmission of light.
So to answer your question the cause of this particular speed is the
interaction of two intesecting fields on a particle of mass. This same
particle is the same particle that emits light which cannot exceed the
speed attained in the combined fields since there is no
applied accellerating force applied to that same particle ,only
retardation. And this is the same particle that sits on a diamagnetic
material that is removed from a heated anode without spin but with an
increase in potential energy. Without spin this same particle
deccellerates before impacting on a luminescent glass surface of a CRT.

derek unwin wrote:

Read before you post. Plank!

Plank?

You don't even know the standard word which means "I'm blocking you
forever because your intelligence is less than dirt".

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:23 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?
There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool
So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

You could go to college and learn all this but here goes.
Planck did a treatise on heat radiation where he stated that heat
radiation
is enabled by two independent functions. First was by conduction and
the second by a ray.
He went on to enlarge on the notion of a ray when is studies moved on
to radio and light radiation. He often consulted with Einstein and was
well aware of his efforts to find the weak force and where he gave up
on that and started a new science where he came up with mc sqd,. With
the abandoned search of Einstein Planck settled hard on the idea that
light was a radiated beam or wave of sorts and it was natural of him
to see radiation of heat in a similar manner i.e a wave or ray in a
similar way that light was thought of.
In fact his work moved later to the nature of light and radio
radiation where the theme of a ray or wave was retained. If Einstein
had included the wrappings of the Big Bang in his studies particles
would have retained the high ground for both him and Planck.
as well as this group together with science which has been misled to
this very day.
Thus Planck started on the wrong track with respect to heat radiation
and all of his other studies. Now he may have known what the speed of
light was but he would see it as a ray of light the same way as a ray

Bafflegab.

of heat. It was later found independently that a particle at the exit
from the combined field intersection was the speed of light which now
can be seen as the cause of light in connection with particle speed
i.e an effect and not a cause.

Give references. This is the key to your argument, in case you can't
figure that out. It also breaks all current laws of physics.

Since we note that wavelengths can denote a change of color the
connection of wavelength, spin ,deccelleration or what ever, directly
relates to the emmission of light.
So to answer your question the cause of this particular speed is the
interaction of two intesecting fields on a particle of mass. This same
particle is the same particle that emits light which cannot exceed the
speed attained in the combined fields since there is no
applied accellerating force applied to that same particle ,only
retardation. And this is the same particle that sits on a diamagnetic
material that is removed from a heated anode without spin but with an
increase in potential energy. Without spin this same particle
deccellerates before impacting on a luminescent glass surface of a CRT.

So you admit you can't explain how to get a particle with mass to light
speed.

Fraud.

tom
K0TAR

On Sep 21, 10:34*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:23 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Have you now discovered a new particle which has charge and no mass?
There you go again, all particles have mass and Newtons laws are still
in place
Stop playing the fool
So explain how your particle which has mass can attain light speed.

tom
K0TAR

You could go to college and learn all this but here goes.
Planck did a treatise on heat radiation where he stated that heat
radiation
is enabled by two independent functions. First was by conduction and
the second by a ray.
He went on to enlarge on the notion of a ray when is studies moved on
to radio and light radiation. He often consulted with Einstein and was
well aware of his efforts to find the weak force and where he gave up
on that and started a new science where he came up with mc sqd,. With
the abandoned search of Einstein Planck settled hard on the idea that
light was a radiated beam or wave of sorts and it was natural of him
to see radiation of heat in a similar manner i.e a wave or ray in a
similar way that light was thought of.
In fact his work moved later to the nature of light and radio
radiation where the theme of a ray or wave was retained. If Einstein
had included the wrappings of the Big Bang in his studies particles
would have retained the high ground for both him and Planck.
as well as this group together with science which has been misled to
this very day.
Thus Planck started on the wrong track with respect to heat radiation
and all of his other studies. Now he may have known what the speed of
light was but he would see it as a ray of light the same way as a ray

Bafflegab.

of heat. It was later found independently that a particle at the exit
from the combined field intersection was the speed of light which now
can be seen as the cause of light in connection with particle speed
i.e an effect and not a cause.

Give references. *This is the key to your argument, in case you can't
figure that out. *It also breaks all current laws of physics.

Since we note that wavelengths can denote a change of color the
connection of wavelength, spin ,deccelleration or what ever, directly
relates to the emmission of light.
So to answer your question *the cause of this particular speed is the
interaction of two intesecting fields on a particle of mass. This same
particle is the same particle that emits light which cannot exceed the
speed attained in the combined fields since there is no
applied accellerating force applied to that same particle ,only
retardation. And this is the same particle that sits on a diamagnetic
material that is removed from a heated anode without spin but with an
increase in potential energy. Without spin this same particle
deccellerates before impacting on a luminescent glass surface of a CRT.

So you admit you can't explain how to get a particle with mass to light
speed.


All that time I took to educate you was all for nothing
On top of that you accused me of breaking the laws of physics which
can only be the laws as you under stand them which is different to the
rest of the World. I also note that you have insulted another person
of the group calling him dirt.
Really you need to read a book of the World as we know it where the
magnetic fields of the Earth become inert to change and the forces of
the standard model reverse to the point of beginnings. When this
reverse begins the dead will rise and it will be heaven
as we then grow younger. Ofcourse those who decided to stay on the
side of the Red sea
will not rejoin the others that stayed on the right path which suggest
that the Middle East will be destroyed as the majority of the tribe
descendants lives there. Ofcourse if you have lived a life where you
insulted all you certainly will not be "one of the meek" that gets
blessed. Yup, read a different book next time and check out the laws
that we all have violated.

Fraud.

tom
K0TAR