[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

[Bill[_4_]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:

From www.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

[Mike Kaliski]

"Bill" wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

From www.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

Bill,

A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat
by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar
surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing
his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup.

Mike G0ULI

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 11:06*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message

...
On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

Fromwww.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

Bill,

A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat
by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar
surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing
his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup.

Mike G0ULI

Mike
It doesn't bother me what he says unless he addresses the subject.
If I am wrong then I want to know why not to fight which is what he
wants.
I suppose we could ask for an explanation as to how a capacitor works
since it seems to me that it does exactly the same as a Faraday shield
or a Gaussian circle. I wouldn't mind dissent as long as they explain
why. Yes, it has been years that this discussion has gone on and
Richard and others have taken the position from the outset that
a Gaussian circle can have no connection to radiation, but refuse to
provide the reasons why this is so. Of course, if he is in error it is
natural that he would like the subject to go away, if he is correct
then he can easily accomplish what he wants. He does have choices.
There is no doubt that he has his followers who are calling me
stupid ,
idiot etc and possibly want me to respond by calling them homosexual
or maybe worse , but none of that gets me to the point that I am
seeking. I have done the work or experiments and now we are at the
point of interpretation as to why those results occur since this is
the usual point that errors can be made. All simple stuff. Actually,
Mike, it is like being on Hyde park corner where many bring a box to
stand on and start preaching to the crowd. Why they do it I do not
know since most people snicker and then move on.

[[email protected]]

Mike Kaliski wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

From www.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

Bill,

A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat
by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar
surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing
his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup.

Mike G0ULI


Unfortunately it is not an analogy.

Art believes this literally.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 11:42*am, wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
....
On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

Fromwww.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

Bill,

A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat
by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar
surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing
his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup..

Mike G0ULI

Unfortunately it is not an analogy.

Art believes this literally.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Let us presume you are correct and I should have introduced particles
at rest on Earth and stated nothing more as the Introduction to the
subject. What else do you want of me so that we can move on?
Would this change your approach to the whole subject?
In fact, can you accept the idea of particles entering the Earth's
boundary so that we can move on with the discussion of static
particles?

[Lostgallifreyan]

wrote in :

Mike Kaliski wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
..
. On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

From www.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

Bill,

A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing
heat by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from
the solar surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has
been pursuing his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in
the newsgroup.

Mike G0ULI


Unfortunately it is not an analogy.

Art believes this literally.



Curious. I was prepared to accept the analogy basis as that is a reasoned
point, but I just went to see the context for myself, and in the second
paragraph I see he lists the three primary colours as red, green, and yellow!
That suggests a degree of inattention to basic detail that undermines most
assertions he makes when demanding rigorous attention from others.

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:



On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
*There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and
photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are
working on. particle physicists like photons because they can draw
them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them
getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally
prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over
macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations.

and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation
is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. just because
no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static,
just that it is not an explicit function of time. actually if you
study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of
them are explicit functions of time. two of them do contain
dervitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an
independent variable.

[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:42Â*am, wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 7:29 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

Fromwww.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

Bill,

A trifle blunt and rather harsh. It's an analogy. The sun is producing heat
by fusion rather than burning, but particles are thrown out from the solar
surface in the solar wind and coronal mass ejections. Art has been pursuing
his theory for years. It's one of the largest postings in the newsgroup.

Mike G0ULI

Unfortunately it is not an analogy.

Art believes this literally.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Let us presume you are correct and I should have introduced particles
at rest on Earth and stated nothing more as the Introduction to the
subject. What else do you want of me so that we can move on?
Would this change your approach to the whole subject?
In fact, can you accept the idea of particles entering the Earth's
boundary so that we can move on with the discussion of static
particles?

Gibberish.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[You]

In article
,
Bill wrote:

On Jan 6, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

From www.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

You Sir, are a Morooon (Bugs Bunny Definition) if you think the above
has ANY basis in FACT.... I don't know where you get that the "Sun is
burning" idea... Burning is Oxidation, and the sun is NOT oxidizing
ANYTHING.... The Sun runs on FUSION... Hydrogen into Helium and higher
Molecular Weight Atoms. this is NOT Oxidation...

Best you leave the Physics and Chemistry to folks that actually paid
attention is Jr. High School.....