[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 7, 7:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote:

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
derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an
independent variable.

One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium
alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was
the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or
energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives
us the picture of change without which there is nothing.

no, time is omitted because it is irrelevant to an equation that
applies 'at each instant' in time. so at any instant you can add up
the charges inside the gaussian surface and know the total flux
through the surface. the only 'equilibrium' is the equals sign that
states that the total flux is equal to a function of the total
charge. you can indeed have energy flow across the gaussian surface
and the equals sign still applies at every instant in time.

David
Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not
mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to
that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside
so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem.

but what is the 'problem'. maxwell's equations as published for the
last hundred years or more seem to work just fine to the limits of our
measurement capabilities.


I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for
explanations to how *the wave actually works. From the above, I really
believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how
things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting
Regards
Art

No one knows how the wave 'actually' works, but we have maxwell's
equations to tell us how to accurately model and predict configuration
of fields and the propagation of waves. That is the one thing your
'theory' seems to be missing, in order for you to have a theory worth
discussing it must first be put down in equations that describe
something measurable so it can be verified versus reality... AND then
it must predict something different from all other existing laws and
theories. without those two conditions you are just a handwaving
carnival hawker trying to sell patent medicine to people who aren't
sick.