"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 7:38 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 3:25 pm, Bill wrote:



On Mar 21, 4:59 pm, joe wrote:

If it is this
article,http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos...sm/SkinDepth/S...
Then more was given.

It was an experiment in skin depth.

Strictly speaking the page describes a demonstration from page 321 of
this book:

G. Bekefi and A. H. Barrett, Electromagnetic Vibrations, Waves and
Radiation, (MIT Press, 1977)

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=7576&ttype=2

A reviewer comments, "MITonline offers the course based on this book
for free. The course is great! This book is a less engaging, but a
more comprehensive version of A.P. French's original text for the
course. There are many gems in the book, such as insights into
microwave oven fundamentals, that are not present in basic texts.
Beware the softcover binding, it needs a gentle hand. "

http://www.amazon.com/Electromagneti...ion-George-Bek...

What does the book point to, waves or particles? We all have plenty of
books and all cannot agree on the subject on radiation! In other words
they have placed their own interpretations of the observations seen
with the double slit experiment as over ruling of all and cast in
stone. This is what the physics forum sponsered by Scientific American
said to me as they banned me because of my temerety in challenging
their position.In addition they stated that it is not possible outside
the physcics spectrum to challenge anything which thus puts all in the
spectrum of crackpots. Dr Davis of MIT provided the mathematics
that confirmed the presense of particles, but mathematics was not
considered a reputable answer compared to the majority argument that
the mathematical aproach was illegal.
So waves hold the majority in the books but by its very presence all
understanding of radiation has been stymied for the last hundred
years by the resistance to change without any accumpanying facts and
where physicists refuse to review to re examine what they state is now
"cast in stone." New books are written every year via plagarisation
for personal profit where the professor orders purchase of such books
for his pay off. Not one has come out with a review of radiation and
why progress has been stymied. And that goes for Radcom and QST who
have no real interest in advancing the hobby of its members.
Regards
Art

Art,

The double slit experiment clearly points to particles or photons. The
slits
are very narrow (otherwise the experiments don't work) and the wave like
properties are caused by the interaction of the particles with the atoms
in
the walls of the slit as they pass through. The slit is modulating the
particles if you like.

We know that individual particles are involved because they can be counted
one by one through a detector.
We know that wave like properties are involved because of the effects
observed on a screen placed behind a diffraction grid.

The observed properties are due to influence exerted on the particles as
they pass through the diffraction grid by the atomic structure of the grid
itself. Unless the experiment were carried out at absolute zero, the atoms
in the walls of the slit are vibrating and must influence the photon as it
passes through.

At absolute zero, nothing would be moving, including the photon, so the
experiment collapses at this point.

Photons are particles that display wave like behaviour under particular
conditions.

Mike g0uli

Mike you know and I know that the double split experiment was
interpreted as evidence
that radiation is created by a wave and not a particle as in quantum
mechanics. This being in opposition to the thinking of the masters of
the day . The descision made went far beyond the duallity stage when
they made this interporetation. Now it is called the infamaos
experiment as they have now identified the initial observations as a
result of particles. To my knoweledge there is no books available for
University students to get up to date as physicist are reluctant to
change or to admit errors. Until this is done students will
continue to remember what the books state to pass their examinations.
A long time has passed since the time of Maxwell and the books still
force Universities to stick with fields and waves where nobody can
procede in the search for truth as we do not know the mass
of the waves or the energy mechanism of the revolving door of such.
This group who have been taught to memorize what a professor states
and not to question by first principles of what is stated then they
all know what to encircle at exam time from a to c which is what the
professor said and has nothing to do with reality. It is not
surprising that Einstein failed in his quest to describe the Standard
Model as he was building on the shoulders of those that preceded him
on the assumption that they were free from error. Now with computers
we have a tremedous amount of formulas that are built on errors which
leaves huge gaps in understanding and the number of constants and
predicted particles to make sense of all these manufactured formulae
based on error. It is not surprizing that physicists are getting away
with all this tripe by stating that all those outside the discipline
are all crackpots as they have had no instruction on their version of
the discipline of mathematics. Now we are all paying for the multi
million CERN project that is intended to break the smallest particle
known to obtain a lesser mass so the speed of light can be exceeded.As
for the Higgs field
predicted by their wierd forms of mathematics it will be found as a
constant squared divided by the mas of numourous unfound but predicted
particles!

Hi Art,

The problem with many of these discussions is that there is a mathematical,
perfect model and then the real world. The real world is imperfect and full
of minute flaws and discrepances that tend to be smoothed over and cancelled
out at large scales, but have very real effects at molecular and smaller
dimensions. The mathematical models will work just fine at making
predictions in the every day world we are used to, but tend to fail when
scaled up to the truely immense or down to molecular levels. This is not
necessarily a fault of the maths or the theory, it just means that not all
the factors that affect the calculation are known or accounted for.

People have indulged themselves in calculating PI to umpteen decimal places.
What is the point? By the time you get to 100 decimal places you could
probably plot a single atom anywhere in the known universe to within a
fraction of its diameter. A third displayed as a decimal fraction comes out
as 0.333... but we also know that the 0.00...1 does not actually exist. So
there is a flaw in the way that a fraction can be displayed at a very basic
level in mathematics and this does cause errors in calculations. These can
be accounted for by using different methods to arrive at the correct answer,
but the calculation is a lot more complicated using decimal arithmetic than
just adding 1/3+1/3+1/3 and arriving at the correct answer of 1.

So the answers you get seem to depend on the methods you use. The skill is
in deciding what is the most appropriate method that gives a best match to
the observed results and also gives the most accurate predictions for the
results that might be observed in future experiments.

Science creeps along step by step improving accuracy and developing models
that more nearly match the real world with each generation building on the
foundations of those that have gone before.

Maxwell's equations have served pretty well and I'm personally not convinced
that adding a time term to the equations is necessary to improve everyday
predictions of antenna performance. You, of course, disagree because your
antenna designs are supposed to generate RF in a different manner to
conventional designs. I don't have a problem with that at all, you have to
use the most appropriate tools you have to support your ideas. But novel
ideas are always a hard sell and it is always an up hill struggle to
overturn an established orthodoxy, no matter if you are right. Unfortunately
it takes time for new ideas to become accepted. Most of the Nobel prize
winners seem to have waited many years before their achievements are
acknowledged. It seems a shame that they win a prize at the end of their
careers when one wonders what they could have achieved with the additional
funds if they had been available at the peak of their abilities. Such is
life.

Incidently, I'm a great fan of CERN and the fusion projects. I know they are
currently seen as huge white elephants and an unnecessary drain on the
economy, but I believe that they are necessary for future science and
securing a viable means of sustainable power generation. Finding a Higgs
particle may not have a direct effect on your everyday life, but it does
have enormous implications for the future of physics and pedictions about
what may or may not be possible in the future.

Regards

Mike g0uli

"joe" wrote ...

Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:34 pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.

As I said before, just adding "+t" to an equation does not make it right.
If I've interpreted your position wrong, then it is because you have not
clearly expressed it.

Art's antennas radiate from the ends. There are charges but they are not
static. Gauss flux is for staic charge. If you add "+t" the flux will be the
oscillating flux.

G3LHZ went to conclusion that antennas are source/sink. The same did Art. Am
I right, Art?

In such case particles (electrons?) oscillate also. But the waves consist of
oscillating "particles".
Maxwell's waves consist of rotating oscillations, Art's are longitudinal.

The ball, as it has always been, is in your court.

It is not a matter of accepting the laws of physics. It is what you do
with/to them that may be the problem.

If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.

Art write too long posts.
S*

On Mar 24, 12:20*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:34*pm, Dave wrote:



Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.

which books. *quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. *i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.

then you better start hunting for a new theory. *i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics

it is you who does not accept the laws that you so much like to quote.

You can take a horse to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.

and you are definitely good at letting loose with the hot air.

On Mar 24, 12:46*am, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:34 pm, Dave wrote:
Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal.
your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field
the particles are going to start moving and won't be in equilibrium
any more... assuming of course the particles are charged or have a
magnetic moment.

This is in opposition to what the books say.
which books. *quote titles and paragraphs and what you think you
oppose in them. *i have given you my quotes as to why it is not
necessary to add a time parameter to gauss's law and you ignore it.

My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal.
then you better start hunting for a new theory. *i have provided you
formulas in the past and you have ignored them... personally i don't
think you even understand the concepts and have probably ignored me on
purpose just so you can continue to blather on to get more attention.

As i said before, if you do not accept the laws of physics then we
cannot debate physics
Probably the best thing to happen for both of us! You can take a horse
to the water trough
but you can't make it drink. Especially when it puts his arse to the
front and lets loose with hot air.Your last statement shows all who
you are and what you are. Free speech can have its price.

Once again, you throw insults when the discussion does not go your way.
I'm not sure you even know who you replied to.

As far as folks not debating you, first present your position in a clear
way with the appropriate math and equations. Allow others to try to
understand your way of thinking. To date, you have not provided the kind
of detail necessary for the kind of debate you would like.

As I said before, just adding "+t" to an equation does not make it
right. If I've interpreted your position wrong, then it is because you
have not clearly expressed it.

The ball, as it has always been, is in your court.

It is not a matter of accepting the laws of physics. It is what you do
with/to them that may be the problem.

If you want to discuss physics, present your case the way those
knowledgeable in the field would do.

he wants to take gauss's law for the flux through a surface containing
charges and add a time dependency to it. the argument against that is
that the equation is already good at any time, it doesn't need to have
a time dependency since it is true at any instant anyway.

On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:
On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

On 3/24/2010 6:20 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:22 am, wrote:
On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

No, I don't understand Art's concepts, who could? But I do know that
equilibrium is not generally defined as "not moving". In fact motion is
not even mentioned. Look it up. I did.

And I have no argument with the current state of affairs within
Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, and no desire to argue it, either. It
was a big enough pain in school.

What makes you think I was arguing his side? I couldn't disagree with
him more.

tom
K0TAR

joe wrote:


As far as folks not debating you, first present your position in a clear
way with the appropriate math and equations. Allow others to try to
understand your way of thinking. To date, you have not provided the kind
of detail necessary for the kind of debate you would like.

New here eh, Joe?

Homie don't play that.

I think it has something to do with the old saying" If I have to explain
it to you, You aren't capable of understanding it."

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
joe wrote:


As far as folks not debating you, first present your position in a
clear way with the appropriate math and equations. Allow others to try
to understand your way of thinking. To date, you have not provided the
kind of detail necessary for the kind of debate you would like.

New here eh, Joe?

Not at all. Just trying to get Art to explain himself. If he really
wanted to discuss his ideas he had the opportunity.

However, his responses make it clear he really has no desire for a
constructive discussion.


Homie don't play that.

I think it has something to do with the old saying" If I have to explain
it to you, You aren't capable of understanding it."

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Mar 24, 6:20*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? *how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? *equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. *please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

I totally agree, Some body is needed to fill in the gaps that art is
unable to do

First, one has to explain equilibrium
Second, one has to explain the boundary laws
with respect to statics
making note that equilibrium must be
in place
Third, one has to make the field dynamic by
providing a
time varying field
Fourth, one has to add formally passive items
into the boundary
so that the entire dynamic field in
place is in a state of equilibrium.

Note: you may add radiators to the inside of
the boundary in the first
instance, but in the second instance
when you make them active
then they have to be both resonant as
well as a wavelength long
by firtue of also being a period One
can then applyMaxwells equations for radiation to the
final arbitrary boundar

Who ever manages to explain the above must
point out that the particles
that are ejected from inside the boundary are
immediately replaced fresh passive particles
that are outside the boundary looking for a diamagnetic surface to
reside upon where, in this instance, is aluminum or copper or any
other material that is diamagnetic such as the radiator

Who ever takes on this task of explaining the above to this
group so that they understand most assuredly has my respect .

On Mar 25, 5:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 24, 6:20*pm, Dave wrote:



On Mar 24, 2:22*am, tom wrote:

On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. *if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? *how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? *equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. *please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

I totally agree, Some body is needed to fill in the gaps that art is
unable to do

* * * * * * * * * * * *First, one has to explain equilibrium
* * * * * * * * * * * Second, one has to explain the boundary laws
with respect to statics
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * making note that equilibrium must be
in place
* * * * * * * * * * * *Third, one has to make the field dynamic by
providing a
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * time varying field
* * * * * * * * * * * Fourth, one has to add formally passive items
into the boundary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *so that *the entire dynamic field in
place is in a state of equilibrium.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Note: you may add radiators to the inside of
the boundary in the first
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * instance, but in the second instance
when you make them active
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *then they have to be both resonant as
well as a wavelength long
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * by firtue of *also being a period * *One
can then applyMaxwells * * * * * * * *equations for radiation to the
final arbitrary *boundar

* * * * * * * * * * * * Who ever manages to explain the above must
point out that the particles
* * * * * * * * * * * that are ejected from inside the boundary are
immediately replaced * * * * * * * fresh * *passive * * * particles
that are outside the boundary looking for a diamagnetic surface to
reside upon where, in this instance, is aluminum or copper or any
other material that is *diamagnetic such as the radiator

* * * * *Who ever takes on this task of explaining the above to this
group so that they understand most assuredly has my respect .

Ive never seen Art apply Maxwell's equations. If he had really been
applying Maxwells equations he would have know that contra wound dummy
load he ranted about for so long would not work.

Jimmie