On Mar 21, 4:33*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Yes my concepts on radiation are in opposition to the
norm so I am using the facts presented as a way of destructing or
confirming my perceptions.
When I read up on Faraday shields the concept of "particles"
predominates as opposed to "waves" without exception and I am trying
to make some sense of these differences when considering propagation.
Perhaps it is a problem with how you do searches. *On this pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
There is no mention of particles as the means of transport to the
shield. Electrons are mentioned as they are part of the cage and respond
to applied fields.
Yes they clearly state electrons which is a particle.

But the electron is NOT how the signal gets to the shield. You need to
read more carefully.

It is extremely

small and of minimul mass which is why Einstein states that the speed
of light is a maximum.
The article you point to shows charges or fields which must be carried
by something like particles as proven in other theories such as
Quantum theory.
Fields and waves book by Ramo etc constantly * lean on boundary laws
thru out there book and boundary laws clearly state the relationship
of static particles to equations relative to radiation.
If we are to refer to waves then accelleration demands mass so we need
a connection between waves and mass.

Try thinking in terms of fields and charges.

Assuming it is a wave that impinges on a Faraday cage we then have to
determine what half a charge comes about so that the charge cancels
and thus reverts to a time varying current. Again another puzzle!

A puzzle because you apply your misconceptions BEFORE first
understanding what is there.

Anyway the article that you point to shows a point charge which is
certainly not a wave which would be represented by a line of the
length used in top band.

Only because you interpret it that way. The article does not mention
point charge as causing the behavior, externally applied fields are
mentioned.

As far as penetration goes the mass involved is always of the same
mass and ikt is only the charge that varies in frequency as shown by
the radius of spin in helical form of the charge.Thus again we have to
find a connection * between wavelength and charge.Another obstical.....
If you can point out why one cannot use boundary rules so that
particles are recognised as the carriers of charge the same as with
Quantum theory I would be very gratified.

Gauss' laws refer to flux and do not require carriers of charge to exist.

None of the group excepting

newcomers such as your self has provided proof of the inelligability
of my approach so I am forced to explore other facets
of radiation to determine why my aproach is in error.

A lot of that has to do with your inability to communicate adequately.

I apologise for not being clear in the subject that creats problems
for newcomers such as yourself but to re iterate the discussion which
has been going on for years *would be quite a hardship. However if as
a newcomer you can supply why static particles cannot be associated
with propergation you would be doing something different to the group
that are relying on zero facts and replacing it with insult and spam.

If you are trying to present a new concept, then it is up to you to show
why, and that, it is right. Do that in a clear convincing way, with the
appropriate math, and you might foster a worthwhile discussion.

The wrong way to do this is throw a half-baked idea out and expect
others to accept it. You'll never prove a point that way.

Thanks for responding in a sensible way *.
I would like to point out in
addition that existing antenna programs with optimizer based on
Maxwells equations rely very heavily on the maintenance of equilibrium
which is the foundation of my aproach which includes particles and
certainly not waves.

Which of these antenna programs have you analyzed to the level to make
this statement? Have you looked at the source code of the programs?

If we are going to throw out such programs we surely must know why
before we take such a step when the presence of particles appear to be
in the majority of aproaches.

Why throw out the programs? Using waves is perfectly correct and
adequate for them.

Waves provide an adequate model for propagation. Particles may be
adequate at the quantum level. Both are ways to describe something.
Neither may adequately describe thing in all cases. They are models for
what happens. As long as the models are applied appropriately, there is
no problem. Applying a model inappropriately is bound to cause problems.

Best regards
Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.....xg

snip



How do you expect us to know what you are really talking about?
I am fully aware that I am not clear with my questions but I have to
live with that.
The point is that I am still trying to find out why the group does not
accept the extension of a static field in equilibrium cannot be
connected to Maxwells equations when adding a time varying field a
train of thought covered by boundary rules that are used in many
places.

That is solely because YOU can't describe your concepts adequately.
Putting "+t" on both sides of an equation does not necessarily lead to
anything meaningful. IF you were to describe your thoughts adequately,
perhaps someone would show you where you make errors.

If we accept the above then we have agreement with

Ok so you are not interested in a debate. I thought that as a newby
you might just be a little uncomfortable with the idea of using
Quantum theory if you desire particles or to use classical physics if
you desire waves. Obviously it is very difficult to accept change.
Any way thanks for your response and the technical data you supplied
for all to digest.
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

Ok so you are not interested in a debate. I thought that as a newby
you might just be a little uncomfortable with the idea of using
Quantum theory if you desire particles or to use classical physics if
you desire waves. Obviously it is very difficult to accept change.
Any way thanks for your response and the technical data you supplied
for all to digest.
Regards
Art

Art,
You seem to be the one avoiding a discussion. When the conversation does
not go your way, you call it quits.

I do my part in responding to your points and pose some questions of my own.

On Mar 21, 6:42*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Ok so you are not interested in a debate. I thought that as a newby
you might just be a little uncomfortable with the idea of using
Quantum theory if you desire particles or to use classical physics if
you desire waves. Obviously it is very difficult to accept change.
Any way thanks for your response and the technical data you supplied
for all to digest.
Regards
Art

Art,
You seem to be the one avoiding a discussion. When the conversation does
not go your way, you call it quits.

I do my part in responding to your points and pose some questions of my own.

Joe, I wanted a debate as to why adding a time varying field to a
boundary enclosed static particles in equilibrium is illegal. This is
in opposition to what the books say.
My whole theory lives or dies on how this is resolved. Nobody will
provide technical details as to why this is illegal. I supplied what I
believe supports the idea but nothing can be considered "proof" to
those who oppose change. If computer programs support retaining
equilibrium at all times then that is an independent result. If
Quantum physics chooses
particles over waves again that is an independent result which
questions conventional judgement. To accelerate a charge in the form
of a wave is un explainable in present science.Nor is the division of
same explainable with respect to the Faraday cage,
To provide an accelleration mass is a must but how a wave provides
such is stated no where. All of these in my mind questions the
validity of using boundary laws for which one
must also reflect equilibrium i.e. is it illegal? Why is it illegal?
It does follow the laws of Newton therefore Newtons laws are at
risk.Yes we are talking about the movement of flux
but movement requires the addition of time. So again the salient point
in this debate is the
addition of a time varying field to an arbitrary boundary containing
static particles deviate from the requirement of equilibrium in all
laws. Namely all statistics are placed on one side
of an equation that equals zero is a specific requirement. "Equal"
really means "equal" and not close enough for horse shoes.
For any sort of debate this central question must be resolved at the
beginning or there is no debate. Resolving this allows for progress
into other areas all of which depends on the above question. If nobody
can demonstrate why it is illegal then proof or truth is not
attainable. If we cannot debate technicalities of radiation then the
group is left to exchanging insults and spam or poll counting

Regards
Art

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.

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.

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.

On Mar 23, 7:46*pm, 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well you can discuss your ideas on physics with David. There are also
some on the group
who obviously understand classical physics. So you have a choice of a
sensible discussion
on physics as well as a discussion of your idea of physics. I await on
the side lines with interest to see what choice you make!

"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, 12:46*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.

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 -