[Bill[_4_]]

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.

[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?

[[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.

[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.

[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.....

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 1:21*pm, You wrote:
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

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.

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.....

Yes, you are correct, as is the comment regarding the number of basic
colours. The introduction was meant to provide an outline to the
subject without getting involved in Lepton and Neutrinos that in the
past took away from the subject at hand namely, particles arriving
from outside the Gaussian circle. When the above items were introduced
on this newsgroup a lot of bad names went flying about, but there was
one comment that stated, for this group it would be better to stick to
particles than to speculate on the subject prior to entrance to the
Earth's circle. Using the term Leptons and the number of different
flavours or colour such as the three colours that are used in tv was
really a mistake when considering the audience I was hoping for. More
than 7K has viewed it according to QRZ but nobody siezed upon this to
make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is more
knowledgable My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the
Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an
introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion
into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced,
and it goes on.

[tom]

Art Unwin wrote:
make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is more
knowledgable My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the
Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an
introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion
into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced,
and it goes on.

And showing more of his ignorance or lack of attention to detail, it
really doesn't matter which, he doesn't realize that fusion is not
nuclear decay.

Art should give it up, but he doesn't realize he's just flatass wrong
about almost everything he says, so he never will. Either that or he's
one of the nets most successful trolls. It matters little which.

tom
K0TAR