wrote:
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding
yeah, i'm sure everyone would want to read it again just to get a good
laugh.

Just the name of this thread is a good laugh..
IE: bend the rules so the error in thinking becomes truth.
Make Maxwell applicable for what? Contra wound dummy loads?
BTW, my cat has new zircon encrusted mittens..


They'd go good with the zircon encrusted tweezers I use at my Montana
dental floss farm.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:
In this instance hams know that the impedance of the air is 377 ohms

No Art, the impedance of free space is 377 ohms. Air changes it a bit,
just not enough that we care.

tom
K0TAR

On Feb 27, 6:39*pm, tom wrote:
wrote:
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding
yeah, i'm sure everyone would want to read it again just to get a good
laugh. *

Just the name of this thread is a good laugh..
IE: bend the rules so the error in thinking becomes truth.
Make Maxwell applicable for what? Contra wound dummy loads?
BTW, my cat has new zircon encrusted mittens.. *

They'd go good with the zircon encrusted tweezers I use at my Montana
dental floss farm.

tom
K0TAR

You must still beware the Huskies and yellow snow.

On Feb 27, 5:46*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
In this instance hams know that the impedance of the air is 377 ohms

No Art, the impedance of free space is 377 ohms. *Air changes it a bit,
just not enough that we care.

tom
K0TAR

Yes, you are correct and I misspoke!
The point I was trying to make that space as we know it, yes free
space, has a resistance value tha same as the carpet and balloons that
I described earlier. This resistance gives substance that the
atmosphere is a true substance or a dielectric and not just nothing or
an empty space. After all, if it was a true nothing or vacuum then
outside forces upon the boundary with in which it exists would
compress that boundary until it really did not exist.
This same explanation explains why a plane or a satellite can transmit
and receive a radio signal because in each case it qualifies as a
Farady cage. As to whether we care or not is dependent on whether we
need the outer layers around earth that sectionalize the boundary
around earth because it is our boundary that hold the layers in
position to provide frictional qualities against the communication
particles. The bottom line is that the eather is not just nothing but
a sea of particles separated by charge and can just as easily land on
a sattellite or impinge on the high density magnetic field at our
magnetic poles where light is created. I would also point out that the
speed of light is determined by "white light" which thus limits the
visible spectrum of light seen at the poles.
Bottom line is that our outer space is not just nothing but is a
dielectric substance that has
a measurable resistance which puts us back fully into the camp of
Newton from which we strayed 100 years ago. The mathematical error is
real and just like a check book that doesn't balance time competes
against its correction.Remember that all this is a result of illness
which forced me back in years where my vocablery was that of a child
and consisted of what, why, when, e.tc that reflects human curiousity
and where one is forced to start from the same datum line which is one
of first principles and not blind acceptance as our experiences and
education system rewards.

On Feb 28, 12:56*am, Art Unwin wrote:

Yes, you are correct and I misspoke!

oh no! i never thought i would see this!

The point I was trying to make that space as we know it, yes free
space, has a resistance value tha same as the carpet and balloons that
I described earlier.

resistance, reactance, impedance, they are all the same i guess in
your world.

This same explanation explains why a plane or a satellite can transmit
and receive a radio signal because in each case it qualifies as a
Farady cage.

then why can a plastic model plane transmit a radio signal?

speed of light is determined by "white light" which thus limits the
visible spectrum of light seen at the poles.

is that why its dark at the poles in winter? they run out of magical
levitating diamagnetic neutrinos? I thought the speed of all
electromagnetic waves was equal in free space.... but thats just a
pesky fact that you are free to ignore in your own little world i
guess.


Remember that all this is a result of illness
which forced me back in years where my vocablery was that of a child

ah, now it all makes sense... you need your meds refilled!

BillyBobMarley wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:39 pm, tom wrote:
wrote:
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding
yeah, i'm sure everyone would want to read it again just to get a good
laugh.
Just the name of this thread is a good laugh..
IE: bend the rules so the error in thinking becomes truth.
Make Maxwell applicable for what? Contra wound dummy loads?
BTW, my cat has new zircon encrusted mittens..
They'd go good with the zircon encrusted tweezers I use at my Montana
dental floss farm.

tom
K0TAR

You must still beware the Huskies and yellow snow.

I'll stick with blessed pancakes with stolen margareen on them.

tom
K0TAR

On Feb 27, 5:39*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the
primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.

And so on...

xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

On Mar 1, 12:02*pm, Bill wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:39*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the

primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.

And so on...

xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

It is not unusual for those involved in physics to see engineers as
trash.
But physicist have relied so much on mathematics to the point of
covering up errors
that it is now really the science of plagarism.I don't know what your
achievement in life are
but it would appear you are talking as a physicist possibly with a
phd. Earlier we had a phd from MIT post that the error I allude to
is indeed an error which occured when the cgs system was replaced I
therefore suggest that you and others should scan the web with respect
to errors made in physics and how they have been covered up. I suggest
you start with the errors of Maxwell and follow thru to see how these
errors have been magnified via plagarism. I am an engineer and not a
physicist such as you which puts me in the position of being able to
check mathematics and discern mathematical errors. I gave you a paper
that echoes the mathematical errors that I pointed out in a much more
readable and scientific fashion. So with the extensive knoweledge you
seem to suggest you have why not critique the math presented in the
article and show to others from a physics standpoint the paper is in
error? This would be so much informative in sending a string of posts
to defame me which is an example of free speech since it has no
scientific analysis to prove your point. This is why I do not respond
to you since you provide no facts of interest only spam as with a few
others on this newsgroup. If indeed you do have a doctorate in the
subject or some notable achievement in this area you will have my
attention but at the moment the only evidence i see is one of spam.

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:02:05 -0800 (PST), Bill wrote:

On Feb 27, 5:39*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the
primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.

And so on...

xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

Green is a primary color - RGB

However, what is primary for one discipline is not primary for another
discipline. For instance, in color photography and in its negatives,
the colors are Cyan, Magenta, and -ahem- Yellow. This is the
difference between additive primaries and subtractive primaries.

These colors are actually dual band modes
Cyan is Blue + Green
Magenta is Blue + Red
Yellow is Green + Red

There is also the opponency color system that contains, as colors,
Red, Blue, Green, and Yellow.

However, color is a perception and has absolutely no connection to
sub-atomic leprechauns. All light emanates from electron orbital
displacements (aka charge acceleration).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Bill wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:39 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the
primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.
And so on...
xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least
in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about
subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes
the standard printing system.

- Mike -