[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?
A Gaussian boundary enclosing static particles can be made dynamic.
Same goes for a Faraday cage, both of which utelizes a time varying
field for radiation. At the same time Maxwells equations show that for
a given volume it must contain radiators that are of a wavelength
where the whole array is also resonant for 100% efficiency in
radiation.
As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers but it is
clear that in the instance of radiation the rate of change of a charge
is that of a particle. Where the determinations of Gauss and Faraday
match the equations of Maxwell ignoring the double slit experiment
which refers to high frequencies where change of state could occur.
Now you and others refer to such findings as nonsence or ramblings
but without supplying basis of same because you do not have the
knoweledge to explain your position, which is normal for the un
educated. You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician but it
is really the same experience over and over again thru the years where
you have learned to quote the required mantra for a particular niche
with little knowledge outside that niche, so your responses are in
line with your personal oft repeated experiences. For me, Gaussian
mention of static particles and the animated samples of the Faraday
cage on the web that also portray particles, both of which one can
apply the mathematics of Maxwell, is sufficient for me to represent
truth for radiation , despite others who say it is nonsense because,
well because they said so. Provide a reasonable rebuttal and you have
my attention, otherwise, concentrate on keeping the beakers clean as
well as the benches.