What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "joe" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In science area are scientists and teachers.
All scientists know that electricity, magnetism and gravity are the same.
S*



I can demonstrate that electrically charged items can repel each other.

Only can. Strong charged attracts the weaker charged.

I can demonstrate how magnets can repel each other.

The same as above.

How do I demonstrate the repelling effect of gravity?

An apple fall down but Moon dust levitates. Is it repelled?
Aepinus was sure about that. Now no doubts.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 22, 6:33 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like
sound.
S*


I have something like
this:
http://perg.phys.ksu.edu:80/vqmorig/...ave/Slit/vq_mw...

See also 1864
in:http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours.../Lecture_Notes...

Transversal wves have no sense. The equations are usefull for teaching
the
math.
right, read this carefully from that 1864 note: 'the requirements of

his mechanical model keep him from finding the correct boundary
conditions, so he never does this calculation'.

This is just one of

the basic shortcomings of using a mechanical analogy, you can not
satisfy the electric and magnetic field boundary conditions that the
final version of his equations handle properly.

In science area are scientists and teachers.
All scientists know that electricity, magnetism and gravity are the same.
Teachers know that the three must be taught seperately. Are you a student?

while some basic

effects like the interference patterns can be duplicated for both
longitudinal and transverse waves, they are not interchangeable in all
cases and trying to do so will only lead to absurd things like
electrons jumping off antennas or the need for an aether to transmit
em waves.

Maxwell's model is for the aether. But with the two substances: magnetism
and electricity.

Your antennas have the blunt tips to prevent the "jumping off ".
The alternate voltage in the ends create the oscilation of electrons in
neighbourhood .

Electrons in space are detected. So they are the aether.
Do not you hear on Dirac electron see?
S*

no, i am not a student, i am an engineer by training and scientist by
title. where in maxwell's equations is there an aether?

Maxwell's equations are wrote by Heaviside (engineer).
Maxwell did the aether model and proper math.
Teachers often use big names to support his program teaching.
The same is with Ampere. His name is used to support the magnetic whirl.
For Ampere the magnetism is an illusion. It is the electric field of moving
charges.

not all antennas have blunt tips, and electron's don't just 'jump off'
an antenna.

Whe they are? The reflected wave is weaker.

no, just because there are electrons in space doesn't make that an
aether. there are electrons flowing in vacuum tubes, that is a
current, not an aether to carry em waves.

The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented.
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 22, 5:56*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...
On May 22, 6:33 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





In textbooks are prsented all theories and hipothesis.
It is your choose which one do you prefer: EM, photons or like
sound.
S*

I have something like
this:
http://perg.phys.ksu.edu:80/vqmorig/...ave/Slit/vq_mw....

See also 1864
in:http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/cours.../Lecture_Notes...

Transversal wves have no sense. The equations are usefull for teaching
the
math.
right, read this carefully from that 1864 note: 'the requirements of

his mechanical model keep him from finding the correct boundary
conditions, so he never does this calculation'.

This is just one of

the basic shortcomings of using a mechanical analogy, you can not
satisfy the electric and magnetic field boundary conditions that the
final version of his equations handle properly.

In science area are scientists and teachers.
All scientists know that electricity, magnetism and gravity are the same.
Teachers know that the three must be taught seperately. Are you a student?

while some basic

effects like the interference patterns can be duplicated for both
longitudinal and transverse waves, they are not interchangeable in all
cases and trying to do so will only lead to absurd things like
electrons jumping off antennas or the need for an aether to transmit
em waves.

Maxwell's model is for the aether. But with the two substances: magnetism
and electricity.

Your antennas have the blunt tips to prevent the "jumping off ".
The alternate voltage in the ends create the oscilation of electrons in
neighbourhood .

Electrons in space are detected. So they are the aether.
Do not you hear on Dirac electron see?
S*
no, i am not a student, i am an engineer by training and scientist by

title. *where in maxwell's equations is there an aether?

Maxwell's equations are wrote by Heaviside (engineer).
Maxwell did the aether model and proper math.
Teachers often use big names to support his program teaching.
*The same is with Ampere. His name is used to support the magnetic whirl.
For Ampere the magnetism is an illusion. It is the electric field of moving
charges.

not all antennas have blunt tips, and electron's don't just 'jump off'

an antenna.

Whe they are? The reflected wave is weaker.

no, just because there are electrons in space doesn't make that an

aether. *there are electrons flowing in vacuum tubes, that is a
current, not an aether to carry em waves.

The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented.
S*

only in very basic non-scientific treatments. this is getting old
again, it is obvious you have stuck a hundred years or more in the
past and will never catch up.

What exactly is radio
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 22, 5:56 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented.
S*

only in very basic non-scientific treatments. this is getting old
again, it is obvious you have stuck a hundred years or more in the
past and will never catch up.

Maxwell's model of aether (two substances) is from 1861.
Dirac model of aether (electrons see) is from 1930 (about).

Who of us is a hundred years or more in the past?
Who do not catch up?
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On May 23, 9:42*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 22, 5:56 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



The same is in conductors. Currents are DC or AC. Maxwell's displacement
current is the AC (oscillating).
In Maxwell's aether the current in the wire oscillate in phase with the
displacement current in the aether.

Why are you the slave the only one hipothesis. The "like sound" is the
theory.

In textbooks no statements which one is correct. The all are presented..
S*
only in very basic non-scientific treatments. *this is getting old

again, it is obvious you have stuck a hundred years or more in the
past and will never catch up.

Maxwell's model *of aether (two substances) is from 1861.
Dirac model of aether (electrons see) is from 1930 (about).

Who of us is a hundred years or more in the past?
Who do not catch up?
S*

sorry, last reply have real antennas to work on today. it was in
between them that the aether was pretty well shot down, you like
wikipedia, go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment
and think some more. dirac was trying to resurrect the aether, that
doesn't make him any more correct than you or art... even the best
thinkers have some bad side trips, the best of them know when to admit
they are on a dead end.

What exactly is radio
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 23, 9:42 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Maxwell's model of aether (two substances) is from 1861.
Dirac model of aether (electrons see) is from 1930 (about).

? Who of us is a hundred years or more in the past?
Who do not catch up?
S*

sorry, last reply have real antennas to work on today. it was in
between them that the aether was pretty well shot down, you like
wikipedia, go read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment
and think some more.

The aether of Lorentz was shot down. Michelson in his famous experiments in
1887 and 1925 (with Gale) proved that the aether rotate with the Sun but do
not rotate with the Earth. Such model of the aether was made by Stokes, the
chamption of the aether.

Lorentz aether was motionless. You know that the Sun rotate. Why the plasma
do not?

The evidences of that are collected by A. G. Kelly:
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/K...%20Light .pdf

dirac was trying to resurrect the aether, that
doesn't make him any more correct than you or art... even the best
thinkers have some bad side trips, the best of them know when to admit
they are on a dead end.

Maxwell was full of doubts.

The aether is shot down from teaching program. The plasma is included.
If somebody do not like the "aether waves" he can use the "plasma waves" or
something else..
S*

What exactly is radio
 

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, tom wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

What exactly is radio
 

"John H. Guillory" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, tom wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.

Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

Cute story, but it doesn't match what I've seen in industry. Maybe I worked
for better companies than you :)

What exactly is radio
 

On 7/9/2012 8:21 PM, John H. Guillory wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

Fortunately I learned to solder long before I learned engineering.

"Oscillators don't, amplifiers do."

tom
K0TAR

What exactly is radio
 

John H. Guillory wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:37:58 -0500, tom wrote:

You are really good, Art. How do you keep it up?

You make new and fresh nonsense up with very many of your posts. Not
every one, but you do have to carry on your themes after all.

Still, it's quite an effort you put into it. How do you continue to
make almost no sense? That's really tough. I mean, even random chance
would say you occasionally have to be realistic.

tom
K0TAR

As an engineer can't afford to act on theories alone
only those that have already be established.
Not knowing anything about what the two of you are talking about, just
gotta say one thing... Engineers are known for knowing all the
knowladge to pass a test, yet not a single bit of real-world usage.
Eg. An engineer can design the complete working schematic for a ham
radio, but when it comes to putting it together, he may have the
hardest time stripping the wires, soldering the connections, etc. But
gosh darn it, once it's completely together, and fired up.... The
engineer would then listen carefully and hear a distorted sounding
voice and insist that the antenna wasn't working to full potential,
while the newly licensed short order cook steps up and turns the
clarifier slightly and hears a much clearer voice, then tells the
Engineer "You go tune the antenna, while I make a connection to this
operator!"

Most engineers are not technicians though a lot were a one time.

Do doctors usually know the best way to mop the floors in the hospital?