On Sep 24, 12:27Â*pm, Szczepan BiaÅ‚ek wrote:
"Cecil Moore" ... Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.

It's "Poynting" vector, named after John Henry Poynting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

"The Umov-Poynting vector[6] discovered by Nikolay Umov in 1874 describes
energy flux in liquid and elastic media in a completely generalized view."

Poynting "discovered" it in 1884.
"He was the developer and eponym of the Poynting vector, which describes the
direction and magnitude of electromagnetic energy flow and is used in the
Poynting theorem, a statement about energy conservation for electric and
magnetic fields. This work was first published in 1884. "

The same is with Maxwell math. Helmholtz wrote such for his whirls.
Many people are thinking in the same time about the same think.
I am not alone in the "Acoustic analogy".
S*
You are correct in your analysis on transmission lines and radiation
and also with your linkage to other sciences such as water flow,
lamina make up.
Einstein made the connection to the standard model and it's four
forces. These are in constant use in our Universe so yes the
mathematics are intertwined. But there are many things we do not
understand about electricity and magnetics such as the fields that are
generated consist of.......what? Mass, elastic energy e.t.c?
So at this point it would be futile to rid yourself of EM as you would
also be ridding yourself
of 1/4 of the Standard model which has not entered the Universe as a
garbage thing.
To join the mathematics as applied by the Standard model to sciences
of the Universe is very idealistic but doable. But at the same time
mathematics has lead us to this present stage with respect to
radiation where with all the tools that scientists have now have not
been able to close gaps in radiation as we know it to this day. Look
at radiation and try to connect it to light and heat emmisions. The
last two science see them as rays, For
radiation ala antennas it is seen as waves, magnetic waves when we
know that intersections of such create distortions, deflections and
even cancellation. So why not begin with one of these problems from
first principles to find a single opening of contention to build a new
theory upon. The odds are that the required evidence is already out
there
where it is constituted on both mathematics and observation thru the
ages rather than something that popped out of a computer where you
have to do all the observations from scratch as to where this new
formula fits in. Since you are looking at acoustics why not start with
PV=WRT
which actually consists of forces stated in the standard model and
thus force
constituents of all the sciences, a treasure chest of guide lines and
information. You are searching for the new where all on this group
resist change from the old. Your treasure chest does not lie here only
minefieldsand decaying sign posts.
Regards

On Sep 24, 3:21Â*pm, Art Unwin wrote
to confirm the posts of Szczepan Białek (a.k.a."S*" ):

You are correct in your analysis on transmission lines and radiation...

That may be your opinion, Art.

S* may find it supportive.

But if you hope that anyone else will accept your opinion, you will
need to provide the literal proof of such using the known, and proven
principles of physics.

RF

"Art Unwin" wrote
...
On Sep 24, 12:27 pm, Szczepan Białek wrote:
"Cecil Moore"
... Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:
Even famous Pointing vector was born in fluids by Umov.

It's "Poynting" vector, named after John Henry Poynting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

"The Umov-Poynting vector[6] discovered by Nikolay Umov in 1874 describes
energy flux in liquid and elastic media in a completely generalized view."

Poynting "discovered" it in 1884.
"He was the developer and eponym of the Poynting vector, which describes
the
direction and magnitude of electromagnetic energy flow and is used in the
Poynting theorem, a statement about energy conservation for electric and
magnetic fields. This work was first published in 1884. "

The same is with Maxwell math. Helmholtz wrote such for his whirls.
Many people are thinking in the same time about the same think.
I am not alone in the "Acoustic analogy".
S*
You are correct in your analysis on transmission lines and radiation
and also with your linkage to other sciences such as water flow,
lamina make up.
Einstein made the connection to the standard model and it's four
forces. These are in constant use in our Universe so yes the
mathematics are intertwined. But there are many things we do not
understand about electricity and magnetics such as the fields that are
generated consist of.......what? Mass, elastic energy e.t.c?
So at this point it would be futile to rid yourself of EM as you would
also be ridding yourself
of 1/4 of the Standard model which has not entered the Universe as a
garbage thing.
To join the mathematics as applied by the Standard model to sciences
of the Universe is very idealistic but doable. But at the same time
mathematics has lead us to this present stage with respect to
radiation where with all the tools that scientists have now have not
been able to close gaps in radiation as we know it to this day. Look
at radiation and try to connect it to light and heat emmisions. The
last two science see them as rays, For
radiation ala antennas it is seen as waves, magnetic waves when we
know that intersections of such create distortions, deflections and
even cancellation. So why not begin with one of these problems from
first principles to find a single opening of contention to build a new
theory upon. The odds are that the required evidence is already out
there
where it is constituted on both mathematics and observation thru the
ages rather than something that popped out of a computer where you
have to do all the observations from scratch as to where this new
formula fits in. Since you are looking at acoustics why not start with
PV=WRT
which actually consists of forces stated in the standard model and
thus force
constituents of all the sciences, a treasure chest of guide lines and
information. You are searching for the new where all on this group
resist change from the old.

They are the practicians. They know the evidences. Only teachers "resist
change from the old."
I know evidences about the Gas analogy from the pneumonic control systems
and many others branches.
Now I am collecting the evidences from the radio waves people that the
voltage radiate not current. I pick-up a lot.

Your treasure chest does not lie here only
minefieldsand decaying sign posts.

Regards
S*

With the Art and Szczepan show appearing with such humor on an
every-day basis, I no longer turn on the TV to watch Comedy Central.

Walt, W2DU

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:15:50 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

With the Art and Szczepan show appearing with such humor on an
every-day basis, I no longer turn on the TV to watch Comedy Central.

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,

They almost re-create the "Who's on First?" skit except neither wants
to be the straight man.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:43 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote with abysmal quoting:
It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*
Regards
Art
You guys need to get a room.
I think that might already be the case.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike I am certainly not wired the same as Clark as I'm married and
have great grand children. It maybe normal for him to go into a room
with a man but why would he paint such a picture of "S" to infer that
he is as sick as him? I like women like any other real man
and certainly do not condone the practices that Clark and possibly you
would aproove of with respect to males or airport bathroom manners

Oh dear, Art. That particular little jibe is used to rib folks who agree
with each other these days, and has gone way past the idea of anyone
suggesting that someone else is gay.

I was myself making a very loose reference that in some cases on the
internet, two different people might actually be occupying the same room
in exactly the same place because sometimes two different personalities
might actually be the same person.

I have no reason to suspect that you are either of these things.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sep 26, 7:23*pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48:43 +0200, Szczepan Bia?ek
wrote with abysmal quoting:
It will not be easy to work out here all details.
S*
Regards
Art
You guys need to get a room.
I think that might already be the case.

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike I am certainly not wired the same as Clark as I'm married and
have great grand children. It maybe normal for him to go into a room
with a man but why would he paint such a picture of "S" to infer that
he is as sick as him? I like women like any other real man
and certainly do not condone the practices that Clark and possibly you
would aproove of with respect to males or airport bathroom manners

Oh dear, Art. That particular little jibe is used to rib folks who agree
with each other these days, and has gone way past the idea of anyone
suggesting that someone else is gay.

I was myself making a very loose reference that in some cases on the
internet, two different people might actually be occupying the same room
in exactly the same place because sometimes two different personalities
might actually be the same person.

I have no reason to suspect that you are either of these things.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I do not agree or disagree with "S". I just don't like it when people
gang up on a person while being shielded behind a keyboard. There is
absolutely no need for insults from those
who apparently know less but merges with a mob attack for personal
security but with the intent to hurt and harm.

Art Unwin wrote:

I do not agree or disagree with "S". I just don't like it when people
gang up on a person while being shielded behind a keyboard. There is
absolutely no need for insults from those
who apparently know less but merges with a mob attack for personal
security but with the intent to hurt and harm.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Art Unwin wrote:

Chris you are being stupid as well as acting as a fool.

tom
K0TAR

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:23:48 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Oh dear, Art. That particular little jibe is used to rib folks who agree
with each other these days

What a tempest in a teaspoon.

At the risk of Art summoning up another mouthful of saliva to cast
upon anything British, a quote from P.G. Wodehouse comes to mind:
"He was either a man of about 150
who was rather young for his years or
a man of about 110
who had been aged by trouble."

Pushing that saliviathan risk to the edge with Oscar Wilde:
"My dear Algy, you talk exactly as if you were a dentist.
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression..."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC