On 05/26/2010 04:52 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 26, 6:14 pm, wrote:
On May 26, 6:00 pm, Art wrote:



On May 26, 12:01 pm, Bill wrote:

On 05/26/2010 08:43 AM, Michael Coslo wrote:

Intelligence is a tool,

Talent is a tool,

But they are not the only tools in the box.

There is drive, there is curiosity, even OCD or Asperger's can be turned
into a tool.

There is memory. There is personality.

I'm around 150, but all that means is that if a problem interests me, I
can figure it our a little before someone who has a lower number.

It is only a number and our individual talents can be very different.
I solve a lot of abstract problems and can instantly visualize things
that can and should be improved. It really does not matter here. We were
really just comparing notes, not bragging. I'm sure some on here could
bury me, especially in antenna design. I find that my brain wants a lot
of input so I study various things even though I will never work in
those fields. I'm 61 so why go back to school??
I am a generalist, not a specialist. Curious about many things, and as
you are posting I am still learning about humans reacting to a mere
number. I came on here originally to ask if anyone knew about a noise
blanker that could be inserted into the receiver/antenna, nothing more.
I did expect that most hams are above average, but did not anticipate
any hostility. Don't be so touchy, I came here to learn and possibly
contribute some of my projects and how they turned out.

Big deal. Some times I think there is something else too, but I'm too
dum to put my finger on it. I've noticed that there is something of a
troubleshooting skill that I've got/cultivated that often allows me to
diagnose a problem a lot more quickly than most other people. Even
that's not much help, because I can often figure out a problem in a
minute, then spend the next 20 minutes trying to convince the other
people I'm with. That's led to some interesting moments, but point is I
think there is some ability to compartmentalize mental functions that
isn't directly related to IQ.

That does put you at the very least, above average.

A fellow who worked for me at one time had a figurative ton of talent.
Awesome photographer, highly skilled at tabletop studio photography.

Unfortunately, he had no drive, and his work life was a sad cycle of his
talent landing him jobs, and his lack of drive losing them for him.

That hasn't happened to me, yet.

I've known people with below average intelligence who had other tools
like drive and personality that made them successful, and a joy to work
with.

Same here. Personality makes a huge difference.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Cheers,
Bill Baka

The hostility towårds me is becåuse I åm seårching for å wåy to better
describe propågåtion. I stumbled on the ideå of måking å Gåussiån
ståtic boundåry dynåmic such thåt Måxwells låws were åpplicåble. This
immediåtely showed thåt pårticles
ånd not wåves were the cårriers of propågåtion.
We åre å very old group thåt hås lived long on the ideå thåt wåves
were the cårriers of propågåtion so åll åre fighting like hell ågåinst
chånge. So åll håve cåme up with the ideå thåt it is illegål to
trånsform
å ståtic field into å dynåmic field becåuse nowhere is it ståted in
print thåt thus wås å låwfull åproåch.
N obody thru the yeårs håve come up with å reåson why this line of
thought is illegål ånd in leåu of this håve substituted hostility. It
is to the benefit of åll thåt ån explånåtion of the illegållity is
provided
ånd yet åll åre silent with respect to supplying å reåson ånd thus
håve reverted to hostility. I thought yeårs ågo thåt becåuse the group
were supposed to be experts ån explånåtion would be provided. Sådley
it would åppeår thåt the older we get the more resistånt we åre to
chånge ånd thus it tåkes the provision of å new generåtion before
ådvånces åre åccepted
Årt
Unwinåntennåss

unfortunately bill, art suffers from short memory also among his other
debilities. it has been explained to him several times by different
people that gauss'es law is perfectly applicable to both static and
varying fields without his 'improvement', he just can't remember it
from day to day.

I never heård it like thåt! So we åll cån now såy thåt pårticles ånd
not wåves åre the cårriers of communicåtion.? Propågåtion is the
åpplicåtion of å displåcement current thåt sepåråtes pårticles from
the surfåce of å rådiåtor by åpplying ån åccelleråtion to såme
Måxwells equåtions determine thåt åll rådiåters, singulår ånd ås å
whole must be resonånt ånd in equilibrium. Åll åbove ås described on
my påge
unwinåntennås.com.Finålly finålly oposition to chånge hås collåpsed

I'm not hostile to anyone, but I do have opinions.
Peace,
Bill Baka

On May 26, 7:34*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
On 05/26/2010 04:52 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 26, 6:14 pm, *wrote:
On May 26, 6:00 pm, Art *wrote:

On May 26, 12:01 pm, Bill *wrote:

On 05/26/2010 08:43 AM, Michael Coslo wrote:

Intelligence is a tool,

Talent is a tool,

But they are not the only tools in the box.

There is drive, there is curiosity, even OCD or Asperger's can be turned
into a tool.

There is memory. There is personality.

I'm around 150, but all that means is that if a problem interests me, I
can figure it our a little before someone who has a lower number.

It is only a number and our individual talents can be very different..
I solve a lot of abstract problems and can instantly visualize things
that can and should be improved. It really does not matter here. We were
really just comparing notes, not bragging. I'm sure some on here could
bury me, especially in antenna design. I find that my brain wants a lot
of input so I study various things even though I will never work in
those fields. I'm 61 so why go back to school??
I am a generalist, not a specialist. Curious about many things, and as
you are posting I am still learning about humans reacting to a mere
number. I came on here originally to ask if anyone knew about a noise
blanker that could be inserted into the receiver/antenna, nothing more.
I did expect that most hams are above average, but did not anticipate
any hostility. Don't be so touchy, I came here to learn and possibly
contribute some of my projects and how they turned out.

Big deal. Some times I think there is something else too, but I'm too
dum to put my finger on it. I've noticed that there is something of a
troubleshooting skill that I've got/cultivated that often allows me to
diagnose a problem a lot more quickly than most other people. Even
that's not much help, because I can often figure out a problem in a
minute, then spend the next 20 minutes trying to convince the other
people I'm with. That's led to some interesting moments, but point is I
think there is some ability to compartmentalize mental functions that
isn't directly related to IQ.

That does put you at the very least, above average.

A fellow who worked for me at one time had a figurative ton of talent.

"Art Unwin" wrote
...


The hostility towårds me is becåuse I åm seårching for å wåy to better
describe propågåtion. I stumbled on the ideå of måking å Gåussiån
ståtic boundåry dynåmic such thåt Måxwells låws were åpplicåble. This
immediåtely showed thåt pårticles
ånd not wåves were the cårriers of propågåtion.

No waves without particles.
Sound waves are the vibrations of air partiles (or liquids and solids).
Water waves are movements of water paeticles.
Electric waves are the vibrations of electrons.

In Maxwell's hypothesis EM waves are the rotational oscillations of massive
magnetic substance.
Up to now the massive magnetic substance is not detected. After Maxwell's
death the electrons were discovered.
Heaviside's equations describe the Maxwell's waves geometrically.

We åre å very old group thåt hås lived long on the ideå thåt wåves
were the cårriers of propågåtion so åll åre fighting like hell ågåinst
chånge. So åll håve cåme up with the ideå thåt it is illegål to
trånsform å ståtic field into å dynåmic field becåuse nowhere is it ståted
in
print thåt thus wås å låwfull åproåch.
N obody thru the yeårs håve come up with å reåson why this line of
thought is illegål ånd in leåu of this håve substituted hostility. It
is to the benefit of åll thåt ån explånåtion of the illegållity is
provided
ånd yet åll åre silent with respect to supplying å reåson ånd thus
håve reverted to hostility. I thought yeårs ågo thåt becåuse the group
were supposed to be experts ån explånåtion would be provided. Sådley
it would åppeår thåt the older we get the more resistånt we åre to
chånge ånd thus it tåkes the provision of å new generåtion before
ådvånces åre åccepted.

In plasma physics are particles.
S*

On May 26, 11:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 26, 6:14*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On May 26, 6:00*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 26, 12:01*pm, Bill Baka wrote:

On 05/26/2010 08:43 AM, Michael Coslo wrote:

Intelligence is a tool,

Talent is a tool,

But they are not the only tools in the box.

There is drive, there is curiosity, even OCD or Asperger's can be turned
into a tool.

There is memory. There is personality.

I'm around 150, but all that means is that if a problem interests me, I
can figure it our a little before someone who has a lower number.

It is only a number and our individual talents can be very different.

On May 27, 8:27*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In plasma physics are particles.
S*

well, at least you have one sentence that says something true.

On May 26, 6:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I never heård it like thåt! So we åll cån now såy thåt pårticles ånd
not wåves åre the cårriers of communicåtion.?

Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are
dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena. There is no
difference between an EM wave and a photonic wave and individual
photons exhibit electromagnetic wave properties. What is important is
that one can double the energy magnitude by adding, in phase, one
photon to one photon. But one cannot halve the energy magnitude by
cutting a photon in half.

It is easy to identify individual photons in an EM wave, especially at
the higher (light+) frequencies. Not so easy is identifying individual
photons in the static magnetic field from a permanent magnet. :-o
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 05/26/2010 08:01 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 26, 7:34 pm, Bill wrote:
On 05/26/2010 04:52 PM, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 26, 6:14 pm, wrote:
On May 26, 6:00 pm, Art wrote:

On May 26, 12:01 pm, Bill wrote:

On 05/26/2010 08:43 AM, Michael Coslo wrote:

Intelligence is a tool,

Talent is a tool,

But they are not the only tools in the box.

There is drive, there is curiosity, even OCD or Asperger's can be turned
into a tool.

There is memory. There is personality.

I'm around 150, but all that means is that if a problem interests me, I
can figure it our a little before someone who has a lower number.

It is only a number and our individual talents can be very different.
I solve a lot of abstract problems and can instantly visualize things
that can and should be improved. It really does not matter here. We were
really just comparing notes, not bragging. I'm sure some on here could
bury me, especially in antenna design. I find that my brain wants a lot
of input so I study various things even though I will never work in
those fields. I'm 61 so why go back to school??
I am a generalist, not a specialist. Curious about many things, and as
you are posting I am still learning about humans reacting to a mere
number. I came on here originally to ask if anyone knew about a noise
blanker that could be inserted into the receiver/antenna, nothing more.
I did expect that most hams are above average, but did not anticipate
any hostility. Don't be so touchy, I came here to learn and possibly
contribute some of my projects and how they turned out.

Big deal. Some times I think there is something else too, but I'm too
dum to put my finger on it. I've noticed that there is something of a
troubleshooting skill that I've got/cultivated that often allows me to
diagnose a problem a lot more quickly than most other people. Even
that's not much help, because I can often figure out a problem in a
minute, then spend the next 20 minutes trying to convince the other
people I'm with. That's led to some interesting moments, but point is I
think there is some ability to compartmentalize mental functions that
isn't directly related to IQ.

That does put you at the very least, above average.

A fellow who worked for me at one time had a figurative ton of talent.
Awesome photographer, highly skilled at tabletop studio photography.

Unfortunately, he had no drive, and his work life was a sad cycle of his
talent landing him jobs, and his lack of drive losing them for him.

That hasn't happened to me, yet.

I've known people with below average intelligence who had other tools
like drive and personality that made them successful, and a joy to work
with.

Same here. Personality makes a huge difference.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Cheers,
Bill Baka

The hostility towårds me is becåuse I åm seårching for å wåy to better
describe propågåtion. I stumbled on the ideå of måking å Gåussiån
ståtic boundåry dynåmic such thåt Måxwells låws were åpplicåble. This
immediåtely showed thåt pårticles
ånd not wåves were the cårriers of propågåtion.
We åre å very old group thåt hås lived long on the ideå thåt wåves
were the cårriers of propågåtion so åll åre fighting like hell ågåinst
chånge. So åll håve cåme up with the ideå thåt it is illegål to
trånsform
å ståtic field into å dynåmic field becåuse nowhere is it ståted in
print thåt thus wås å låwfull åproåch.
N obody thru the yeårs håve come up with å reåson why this line of
thought is illegål ånd in leåu of this håve substituted hostility. It
is to the benefit of åll thåt ån explånåtion of the illegållity is
provided
ånd yet åll åre silent with respect to supplying å reåson ånd thus
håve reverted to hostility. I thought yeårs ågo thåt becåuse the group
were supposed to be experts ån explånåtion would be provided. Sådley
it would åppeår thåt the older we get the more resistånt we åre to
chånge ånd thus it tåkes the provision of å new generåtion before
ådvånces åre åccepted
Årt
Unwinåntennåss

unfortunately bill, art suffers from short memory also among his other
debilities. it has been explained to him several times by different
people that gauss'es law is perfectly applicable to both static and
varying fields without his 'improvement', he just can't remember it
from day to day.

I never heård it like thåt! So we åll cån now såy thåt pårticles ånd
not wåves åre the cårriers of communicåtion.? Propågåtion is the
åpplicåtion of å displåcement current thåt sepåråtes pårticles from
the surfåce of å rådiåtor by åpplying ån åccelleråtion to såme
Måxwells equåtions determine thåt åll rådiåters, singulår ånd ås å
whole must be resonånt ånd in equilibrium. Åll åbove ås described on
my påge
unwinåntennås.com.Finålly finålly oposition to chånge hås collåpsed

I'm not hostile to anyone, but I do have opinions.
Peace,
Bill Baka

I see no hostility from you Bill. But there has been a lot of
hostility to my proposed theorem.

Keep at it. This is the way breakthrough discoveries are made. Do NOT
discourage the guy who is trying to make a scientific breakthrough.

Just following Newtons laws for
equations that when all is summed it must equal zero. This is no
different that allowed an addition of displacement current by Maxwell.
Same goes for all boundary laws with respect to Newton whether they
may be static or dynamic. Now in the case of Gauss and Newton
each had different units because of a change in standards so authors
never bothered or was to lazy to do the excercise.

That I have seen, but it is more of an educated opinion echoing what
they were taught in school/college.

As it happens if
one did go thru with the excersise you will find that the dynamic form
of Gauss's law is exactly the same as Maxwells laws for propagation.
Just think if any author had taken this step we would never have had
the discussions of waves versus particles that have held up the
explanation of accelleration of charge which is propelled by the
intersection with displacement current! This group initially rejected
everything because I inferred the connection of static fields with
propagation which they just could not accept. And for good reason in
that it is not explained in any books. When I used an optimizer
program based solely on Maxwell I expected an array in equilibrium
which is what I got. In addition the array supplied by the program
reflected the equal and opposite arrangement of vectors supplied by
gravity and earths rotation where these same two vectors continue thru
out the Maxwell /Gauss equation all the way back to the big bang when
equilibrium was broken momentarily where a particle escaped with the
addition of spin. All this was what Einstein was searching for and
showed how a particle/charge was supplied with accelleration and spin
such that there was straight line trajectory that was not impinged
upon by gravitational effects.

I am wondering how a wave, light, can be affected by a black hole as has
been seen by the Hubble space telescope. This goes deeply into the
nature of light it self, like how is a wave with no real mass affected?
We need researchers pushing the boundary, and if others don't understand
it then let them step aside.

From all these matching sections and
interactions I saw that the Neutrinos was the particle in question
because it is of the smallest mass known and because of this the speed
of light can be ascertained. Now we have the accelleration of the
neutrinos (CERN and FERMILAB) and consequential impacts which sort of
infers that the neutrinos can shatter into smaller amounts of mass of
that which was accellerated at the speed of light which I really don't
understand. We also have the notion of a photon detaching itself from
a Neutrinpos for the purposes of light which states that this aproach
means the formation of a photon that has no mass the possibility of
which has not been proved.

This is where I get into it, Photons are just a way to explain something
to the masses of people who can nor understand the true nature of light.
CERN has, I think, two counter rotating beams that can cause a crash at
nearly twice the speed of light.
New and non-naturally formed particles, some with a life time measured
in nano seconds.

Frankly physics has to go back to classical
physics where it is confirmed that the idea of waves was an error that
held physics back for so long. At least now we have a progresion of
events that satisfies Maxwells equations in every respect that
requires no new laws and only the adherence to existing laws of the
masters where the presence of equilibrium is demanded as with all
laws. The cream of the theory came when I used a program devoted
solely to the requirements of Maxwell and it provided a non planar
design where equilibrium was adhered to and the vectors involved were
opposite to those involved outside the boundary containing our Earth.
Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg
unwinantennas.com

Keep at it and you may well join the ranks of Maxwell, Hertz,....
Bill Baka

On May 27, 10:59*am, Bill Baka wrote:
I am wondering how a wave, light, can be affected by a black hole as has
been seen by the Hubble space telescope. This goes deeply into the
nature of light it self, like how is a wave with no real mass affected?

Photons have mass because of their velocity (speed of light). m = E/
c^2 Photons have no rest mass but they are never at rest. An
experiment long ago proved Einstein to be correct when he claimed that
light was affected by gravity. A black hole is no exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Frankly physics has to go back to classical

How would classical physics explain how a single particle can go
through two slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the
other side? This phenomenon includes photons, electrons, and
apparently includes relatively massive Bucky Balls made up of many
carbon atoms.

How would classical physics explain how entangled particles remain in
instantaneous contact no matter how far apart they are? This seems to
violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the speed-of-light limit.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 27, 10:59Â*am, Bill Baka wrote:
I am wondering how a wave, light, can be affected by a black hole as has
been seen by the Hubble space telescope. This goes deeply into the
nature of light it self, like how is a wave with no real mass affected?

Photons have mass because of their velocity (speed of light). m = E/
c^2 Photons have no rest mass but they are never at rest. An
experiment long ago proved Einstein to be correct when he claimed that
light was affected by gravity. A black hole is no exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

And if you read that article you will find it says that space itself is
warped which means the path is changed and not that the photons are
put on a different path because they have mass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On 05/27/2010 09:34 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 27, 10:59 am, Bill wrote:
I am wondering how a wave, light, can be affected by a black hole as has
been seen by the Hubble space telescope. This goes deeply into the
nature of light it self, like how is a wave with no real mass affected?

Photons have mass because of their velocity (speed of light). m = E/
c^2 Photons have no rest mass but they are never at rest. An
experiment long ago proved Einstein to be correct when he claimed that
light was affected by gravity. A black hole is no exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

Frankly physics has to go back to classical

How would classical physics explain how a single particle can go
through two slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the
other side? This phenomenon includes photons, electrons, and
apparently includes relatively massive Bucky Balls made up of many
carbon atoms.

How would classical physics explain how entangled particles remain in
instantaneous contact no matter how far apart they are? This seems to
violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the speed-of-light limit.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I probably should not have breached the subject since it will be a war
of opinions. If light was indeed a particle (photon) it could be
affected, but light is just really super high frequency radio in nature.
Radio is not particulate so why the hang-up over photons???
Bill Baka