It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art


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

On Apr 30, 9:22*pm, tom wrote:
It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
* * *This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

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.
In other words I can act on a full picture made of jigsaw parts but
not a partial picture. Therefore one must deal with fully melded and
interacting parts that are consistant to reality. Thus I adhere to
classical physics and factual observances or laws without straying
from the path I have chosen from interconnecting parts.
Quantum theory is based on probabilities and associated math. Any body
who has been to the race track knows that this form of thinking has
its fallacies thus probabilities has moved towards string theory. I
stick to classical physics as they have a history of success with the
laws that they have established but unfortunately physicists have
corrupted the language of observances. For instance we had a
discussion on Leptons, colour etc. Physicists recognise that colour as
the rest of the world knows it as a means of separation of its
observed actions instead of labelling it lepton1 or lepton 2.Same goes
for hadrons, they actually could be a single type particle but
physicists label them by the action that they exhibit on observance.
Why do you think that the idea of a mad scientist hangs on to this
day. They did similar things with respect to waves which in their
world has nothing to do with water, tides e.t.c.
So for me there is merit in sticking to points raised by classical
physics since they are tried and true
under examination and have not exploded by categerizing particles by a
particular observation.
After all, both a dog and a cat have a tail they can wag but the real
world can have the same observation of different entitiesand vica
versa.
What I desire the most is for somebody to challenge my statements
based on documented observations and laws bearing in mind that the
written word comes after factual examination and not before.As yet
nobody has pointed out a fallacy that is in conflict with presently
known laws, and I mean nobody. If there is a conflict then I will
discard all. But remember, I do not make computer programs on
radiators but they all confirm the presence of particles and
equilibrium and I have had no way of manipulating that to conform to
my thinking. They show that maximum radiation is obtained when
material resistance drops to zero and radiation rises to a maximum via
current flow outside the member to elevate particles at rest on the
surface. I couldn't possibly string some thing like that as a joke or
by not taking my medicine.

On 4/30/2010 10:17 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:22 pm, wrote:
It is accepted that radiation is "an acceleration that generates or
transfers a charge ". This is an empty statement if one cannot explain
the mechanics of the operation.Certainly you have to determine what
you have in hand to provide this action, and at the present time there
is no agreement whether it is a wave flow of a constituent, what ever
that may be, or a particle.
Therefore one has to determine exactly what we are going to accelerate
and how we are going to avoid the effects of gravity since radiation
does not follow the action of a descending lob.
This as yet has not been determined, so we cannot begin to
understand! For me I see a wave as being an adjective and a particle
as a noun.
But a word of warning,physicists do not follow the same rules of the
general public, so if you have a day or two to spare get a physicist
to explain exactly what a 'wave' is and how does it fit with the
required straight line accelerating trajectory that opposes gravity!
You just cannot explain "radio" until you determine what you are
accelerating and how.
Sorry about that
Regards
Art

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.
In other words I can act on a full picture made of jigsaw parts but
not a partial picture. Therefore one must deal with fully melded and
interacting parts that are consistant to reality. Thus I adhere to
classical physics and factual observances or laws without straying
from the path I have chosen from interconnecting parts.
Quantum theory is based on probabilities and associated math. Any body
who has been to the race track knows that this form of thinking has
its fallacies thus probabilities has moved towards string theory. I
stick to classical physics as they have a history of success with the
laws that they have established but unfortunately physicists have
corrupted the language of observances. For instance we had a
discussion on Leptons, colour etc. Physicists recognise that colour as
the rest of the world knows it as a means of separation of its
observed actions instead of labelling it lepton1 or lepton 2.Same goes
for hadrons, they actually could be a single type particle but
physicists label them by the action that they exhibit on observance.
Why do you think that the idea of a mad scientist hangs on to this
day. They did similar things with respect to waves which in their
world has nothing to do with water, tides e.t.c.
So for me there is merit in sticking to points raised by classical
physics since they are tried and true
under examination and have not exploded by categerizing particles by a
particular observation.
After all, both a dog and a cat have a tail they can wag but the real
world can have the same observation of different entitiesand vica
versa.
What I desire the most is for somebody to challenge my statements
based on documented observations and laws bearing in mind that the
written word comes after factual examination and not before.

snip

I couldn't possibly string some thing like that as a joke or
by not taking my medicine.

Ok, I'm sure that you are the expert on that subject.

Who could argue how sane you always seem to be.

tom
K0TAR

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!"

"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

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

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?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:03:29 -0000, wrote:
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?

Quite possibly, yes.

Wayne wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:03:29 -0000, wrote:

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

Quite possibly, yes.

I highly doubt most doctors have any knowledge of the floor cleaning
products available on the market or their efficacious.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:03:29 -0000, wrote:

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

The 11th Dr Who knows how to use a mop.
http://www.toplessrobot.com/fez.png
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15265256@N03/5143518610/

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558