|
Computer model experiment
On May 25, 5:02*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Wow, I'm in awe of the great levels of genius represented here on this humble forum! And if boys ever outgrew the "mine's bigger than yours" compulsion, we never would have known -- or even suspected! Thanks so much for sharing your IQs, whether known, suspected, or just claimed, with us. You geniuses will be expected to provide brilliant insights into those sticky problems which have eluded not only us, but also the relatively pedestrian intellects of the likes of Termin, Maxwell, and Kraus. Art has already shown the way and set the bar. Go for it! Roy Lewallen, W7EL A high IQ is very overrated. Many people with high IQ's go crazy after a few decades because they worry about too much nit picky crap, and then they end up in a rubber room barking at the moon. I think I'm about 2/3's of the way there sometimes.. :/ |
Computer model experiment
On 5/25/2010 5:02 PM, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Wow, I'm in awe of the great levels of genius represented here on this humble forum! And if boys ever outgrew the "mine's bigger than yours" compulsion, we never would have known -- or even suspected! Thanks so much for sharing your IQs, whether known, suspected, or just claimed, with us. You geniuses will be expected to provide brilliant insights into those sticky problems which have eluded not only us, but also the relatively pedestrian intellects of the likes of Termin, Maxwell, and Kraus. Art has already shown the way and set the bar. Go for it! Roy Lewallen, W7EL Thanks Roy. About time someone made a comment. I have been near projectile you know what for a while. I can claim a lot too. Meaningless. On the other hand you have produced verifiable product. tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
On 5/25/2010 11:06 AM, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 23:29:24 -0700, Richard wrote: I'm amazed that anyone even remembers that fictional lake. Bill Baka It's not hard to forget something that is on every week. Well, that logic blew a tire.... I will just ride the rim as I head for the off ramp. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Some people just don't like the show. Even those of us that live nearly next door to the clod that makes the it. No offense, but he is not nice a nice guy and is quite offensive to the local population. Not kidding. tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
On May 25, 8:44*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/25/2010 5:02 PM, Roy Lewallen wrote: Wow, I'm in awe of the great levels of genius represented here on this humble forum! And if boys ever outgrew the "mine's bigger than yours" compulsion, we never would have known -- or even suspected! Thanks so much for sharing your IQs, whether known, suspected, or just claimed, with us. You geniuses will be expected to provide brilliant insights into those sticky problems which have eluded not only us, but also the relatively pedestrian intellects of the likes of Termin, Maxwell, and Kraus. Art has already shown the way and set the bar. Go for it! Roy Lewallen, W7EL Thanks Roy. *About time someone made a comment. *I have been near projectile you know what for a while. *I can claim a lot too. *Meaningless. On the other hand you have produced verifiable product. tom K0TAR IQ means little really. It's just a perceived level of aptitude. An aptitude which is often wasted.. :/ I rarely bring it up myself, being as I consider it a fairly useless measurement. The only reason I did was to show that having a high IQ does not mean you will automatically be gifted at whatever. :/ IE: I've been measured as having a fairly high IQ, but in this newsgroup I would just rank as the typical ham as far as general knowledge about things RF. Many here would smoke me with little effort.. Not Art though.. :) I'm not really into hard core mathematical type problems. In fact, I find them boring.. I tend to only learn about things that actually interest me, or I have some specific need to know. For instance, the main reason I study a bit of RF theory is not to be a science whiz.. It's so I can have a decent antenna. :/ Some of the stuff Cecil ponders would bore me to tears.. Actually, if I have any special aptitude, it would probably be in music, or art. And those traits kind of run in my family.. It sure isn't in science, although I've been into certain aspects of science since I was a sprout. I started playing with radios when I was 7 and got my first one for my birthday. I was into astronomy quite a bit way back in a past life.. |
Computer model experiment
|
Computer model experiment
On 05/25/2010 02:22 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 25, 3:42 pm, Bill wrote: On 05/25/2010 06:01 AM, Cecil Moore wrote: On May 24, 11:21 pm, Bill wrote: I considered joining Mensa but their standards are too low for me. Here's the one for you: "The Giga society is the world's most exclusive High-IQ society. An IQ of 196 or higher is required to join." http://www.gigasociety.org/ -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Yup. I know about it but I don't think I could top that after 61 years. My diet had way too much beer from 21 to 54, when I finally quit that habit. Had my parents encouraged me instead of kicking me out of the house to play with 'normal' kids I might have made it, but I don't think I am that high on the scale. Somewhere around 160'ish is my best guess but I am somewhat apathetic about it right now. Cheers, Bill Baka Don't give up on åchieving thåt. Retirees usuålly expånd their life experiences ånd åchivements. By the time you reåch 80 the numbers måy well rise to åbove 200! I do admit reading way too much, but I enjoy the professional Magazines I get in the mail. My reading habits go far beyond just electronics and compute so I read Military and aerospace, NASA tech briefs, information week, EDN, Electronics design, and many more. I can at least push my brain as hard as possible. BTW, does anyone here know a good grammar checking program. There are some good windows 7 products but my scanner will not let me use it in Linux land since h.P. has flat out told me my 4 year old scanner is now obsolete and they are making new scanners, won't even attempt to fix the driver mode since H.P. never made any drivers for Linux. Come summer, if it ever gets here, I will be busy on my 100+ mile bicycle rides. These take from sunup to sun down, but burn huge amount of calories climbing endless hills. Return to school? I might take classes at the local junior college and collect about three or four subjects and try to get 4 or 5 Associate degrees. I won't be able to that and actually finish with requirements that are needed (forced down my throat) So that would be a logical start for me. Cal state in Sacramento is the next college for the next four years, but I can challenge some of them. It is an idea but for the summer I am going into physical fitness and not computer mode. It may be a little 'old' at my age but I can do the school work just as easily as ever. Cheers, Bill Baka |
Computer model experiment
On 05/25/2010 02:48 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 25, 9:22 pm, Art wrote: On May 25, 3:42 pm, Bill wrote: On 05/25/2010 06:01 AM, Cecil Moore wrote: On May 24, 11:21 pm, Bill wrote: I considered joining Mensa but their standards are too low for me. Here's the one for you: "The Giga society is the world's most exclusive High-IQ society. An IQ of 196 or higher is required to join." http://www.gigasociety.org/ -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Yup. I know about it but I don't think I could top that after 61 years. My diet had way too much beer from 21 to 54, when I finally quit that habit. Had my parents encouraged me instead of kicking me out of the house to play with 'normal' kids I might have made it, but I don't think I am that high on the scale. Somewhere around 160'ish is my best guess but I am somewhat apathetic about it right now. Cheers, Bill Baka Don't give up on åchieving thåt. Retirees usuålly expånd their life experiences ånd åchivements. By the time you reåch 80 the numbers måy well rise to åbove 200! so what is your excuse? No excuse, just too far down on the income to actually join one. My brain is in no position to pay for a membership and and I would not want to take an IQ test after a night of no sleep. If I qualify for Giga society I would be amazed. I might just luck out and qualify, but who knows? I am not intentionally doing anything to average people but some times I over-estimate people's ability to understand. Bill Baka |
Computer model experiment
On 05/25/2010 03:02 PM, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Wow, I'm in awe of the great levels of genius represented here on this humble forum! And if boys ever outgrew the "mine's bigger than yours" compulsion, we never would have known -- or even suspected! Thanks so much for sharing your IQs, whether known, suspected, or just claimed, with us. You geniuses will be expected to provide brilliant insights into those sticky problems which have eluded not only us, but also the relatively pedestrian intellects of the likes of Termin, Maxwell, and Kraus. Art has already shown the way and set the bar. Go for it! Roy Lewallen, W7EL I'm not into the bragging mode and never had to be. Of course I put down some fellow engineers at one job. All I know is that I can take a look at almost anything and make it better. Bill Baka |
Computer model experiment
|
Computer model experiment
On May 25, 10:37*pm, wrote:
On May 25, 8:44*pm, tom wrote: On 5/25/2010 5:02 PM, Roy Lewallen wrote: Wow, I'm in awe of the great levels of genius represented here on this humble forum! And if boys ever outgrew the "mine's bigger than yours" compulsion, we never would have known -- or even suspected! Thanks so much for sharing your IQs, whether known, suspected, or just claimed, with us. You geniuses will be expected to provide brilliant insights into those sticky problems which have eluded not only us, but also the relatively pedestrian intellects of the likes of Termin, Maxwell, and Kraus. Art has already shown the way and set the bar. Go for it! Roy Lewallen, W7EL Thanks Roy. *About time someone made a comment. *I have been near projectile you know what for a while. *I can claim a lot too. *Meaningless. On the other hand you have produced verifiable product. tom K0TAR IQ means little really. *It's just a perceived level of aptitude. An aptitude which is often wasted.. *:/ I rarely bring it up myself, being as I consider it a fairly useless measurement. The only reason I did was to show that having a high IQ does not mean you will automatically be gifted at whatever. :/ IE: I've been measured as having a fairly high IQ, but in this newsgroup I would just rank as the typical ham as far as general knowledge about things RF. Many here would smoke me with little effort.. Not Art though.. :) I'm not really into hard core mathematical type problems. In fact, I find them boring.. *I tend to only learn about things that actually interest me, or I have some specific need to know. For instance, the main reason I study a bit of RF theory is not to be a science whiz.. It's so I can have a decent antenna. :/ Some of the stuff Cecil ponders would bore me to tears.. Actually, if I have any special aptitude, it would probably be in music, or art. *And those traits kind of run in my family.. It sure isn't in science, although I've been into certain aspects of science since I was a sprout. I started playing with radios when I was 7 and got my first one for my birthday. I was into astronomy quite a bit way back in a past life.. Some of the people I knew who were the most gifted have led the most wasted lives. Can you imagine having an IQ in the 140s and the focus of your life is antennas. What a waste. Jimmie |
Computer model experiment
On May 26, 1:25*am, JIMMIE wrote:
Some of the people I knew who were the most gifted have led the most wasted lives. Can you imagine having an IQ in the 140s and the focus of your life is antennas. What a waste. Kraus, Jasik, and Balanis might disagree - maybe even Terman. Why are antennas a less desirable specialization than any other specialization? Is counting the barbs on a fruit fly's penis to determine its exact species somehow superior to antennas? :-) -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Computer model experiment
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 23:29:24 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: I'm amazed that anyone even remembers that fictional lake. Bill Baka It's not hard to forget something that is on every week. Well, that logic blew a tire.... I will just ride the rim as I head for the off ramp. 8^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - who to my great embarrassment, was rying to figure that one out for longer than anyone should have. |
Computer model experiment
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. 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. 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. 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. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Computer model experiment
On May 26, 10:43*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. 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. 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. 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. * * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI - My heårt åttåck probåbly puts me åt the bottom of the heåp. But with åll these high fålluting intelligence numbers how is it thåt åll deny thåt by måking Gåuss låw of ståtic form into dynåmic form Måxwells equåtions åre åpplicåble. We åre tålking båsics clåssicål physics here but we håve nobody who cån explåin why this åproåch is illegål |
Computer model experiment
On 05/26/2010 08:27 AM, Michael Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 24 May 2010 23:29:24 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: I'm amazed that anyone even remembers that fictional lake. Bill Baka It's not hard to forget something that is on every week. Well, that logic blew a tire.... I will just ride the rim as I head for the off ramp. 8^) - 73 de Mike N3LI - who to my great embarrassment, was rying to figure that one out for longer than anyone should have. Hey, I do not get his lake woebegone on either TV or radio. I seriously thought he dropped off the radar. Bill Baka |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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. 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 |
Computer model experiment
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. 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. |
Computer model experiment
On 5/26/2010 9:32 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 26, 1:25 am, wrote: Some of the people I knew who were the most gifted have led the most wasted lives. Can you imagine having an IQ in the 140s and the focus of your life is antennas. What a waste. Kraus, Jasik, and Balanis might disagree - maybe even Terman. Why are antennas a less desirable specialization than any other specialization? Is counting the barbs on a fruit fly's penis to determine its exact species somehow superior to antennas? :-) -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com I don't know Cecil, he may be correct. Who needs TV, radio, cell phones, satellites, WiFi and other crap like that? tom K0TAR |
Computer model experiment
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. 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. |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
"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* |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
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. |
Computer model experiment
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 |
Computer model experiment
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci ... 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. And are this true: "We also assumed, perfectly arbitrarily, that the direction of these vortices is such that, on looking along a line of force from south to north, we should see the vortices revolving in the direc- tion of the hands of a watch. We found that the velocity of the circumference of each vortex must be proportional to the intensity of the magnetic force, and that the density of the substance of the vortex must be propor- tional to the capacity of the medium for magnetic induction." From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force "the density of the substance of the vortex " As you see in Maxwell's hypothesis was the mass. The all waves need mass and inertia. But all movements (also waves) can be described dynamically (with mass) or geometrically (only directions and speed). The famous Heaviside's equations are the geometrical description of the waves. S* |
Computer model experiment
On May 27, 12:20*pm, Bill Baka wrote:
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??? Quoting Roger Miller from the movie: "Water Hole Number Three"; "If fishes had wishes, they'd fly". Actually, it has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with actual experiments. EM wave energy, which includes visible light and RF waves, has been proven beyond any doubt to be quantized which implies a particle nature and not a continuously variable analog field. In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which has an uncanny ability to predict sub-atomic physics experimental outcomes, tells us that nothing can exist outside of its existence as a particle. Have you ever tried to prove that something can actually exist without a particle nature being involved? From the lowest level of light detectable by the human brain, the next step up in brightness is 11.1111% greater than that first level - not 0.000001% as your opinion seems to desire. Following is the URL for an interesting paper on the subject. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...902.2896v1.pdf -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Computer model experiment
I downloaded the pdf file so I can read it this evening. I may be back
on this topic later after doing some reading. Of course I may disagree with the particle nature, but hey, I have an opinion too. Cheers, Bill Baka On 05/27/2010 11:47 AM, Cecil Moore wrote: On May 27, 12:20 pm, Bill wrote: 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??? Quoting Roger Miller from the movie: "Water Hole Number Three"; "If fishes had wishes, they'd fly". Actually, it has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with actual experiments. EM wave energy, which includes visible light and RF waves, has been proven beyond any doubt to be quantized which implies a particle nature and not a continuously variable analog field. In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which has an uncanny ability to predict sub-atomic physics experimental outcomes, tells us that nothing can exist outside of its existence as a particle. Have you ever tried to prove that something can actually exist without a particle nature being involved? From the lowest level of light detectable by the human brain, the next step up in brightness is 11.1111% greater than that first level - not 0.000001% as your opinion seems to desire. Following is the URL for an interesting paper on the subject. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...902.2896v1.pdf -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Computer model experiment
Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 27, 12:20Â*pm, Bill Baka wrote: 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??? Quoting Roger Miller from the movie: "Water Hole Number Three"; "If fishes had wishes, they'd fly". Actually, it has nothing to do with opinions and everything to do with actual experiments. EM wave energy, which includes visible light and RF waves, has been proven beyond any doubt to be quantized which implies a particle nature and not a continuously variable analog field. In fact, quantum electrodynamics, which has an uncanny ability to predict sub-atomic physics experimental outcomes, tells us that nothing can exist outside of its existence as a particle. Have you ever tried to prove that something can actually exist without a particle nature being involved? Not quite. You can observe the particle nature of EM or you can observe the wave nature of EM, but you can't observe both at the same time. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Computer model experiment
On May 27, 5:29*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ... 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. And are this true: "We also assumed, perfectly arbitrarily, that the direction of these vortices is such that, on looking along a line of force from south to north, we should see the vortices revolving in the direc- tion of the hands of a watch. We found that the velocity of the circumference of each vortex must be proportional to the intensity of the magnetic force, and that the density of the substance of the vortex must be propor- tional to the capacity of the medium for magnetic induction." From:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force "the density of the substance of the vortex " As you see in Maxwell's hypothesis was the mass. The all waves need mass and inertia. But all movements (also waves) can be described dynamically (with mass) or geometrically (only directions and speed). The famous Heaviside's equations are the geometrical description of the waves. S* as has already been pointed out this paper predates the publication of the full set of maxwell's equations, and even the publication of gauss' law... so much development was done in em theories after that date. just because something is written down doesn't make it right or we would still be living with 4 elements and letting blood to cure disease. |
Computer model experiment
On May 27, 9:53*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 26, 6:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote: snip Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena. Now just hold on right there! As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word and not a noun as described by a particle. Just as a amount of moisture does not become equal to a cloud. You are using existing positions and theories without the required accompanying proof The truth is that none of the existing theories stand up to examination to explain the phenomina of radiation upto and including the super string theory. Thus they are all suspect in one way or another. Right at the very beginning I used Gauss's definition to describe a particle, no where is the term wave mentioned Now we come to Maxwells equations he also does not mention waves because he is considering a instant of time which includes every function required to perform the function of displacement of a particle as refferred to by Gauss. He also reinforced the idea of equilibrium per Newtons laws by assuring that all components involved in the equation equalled zero. Thus one can say using long existant rules that what is made dynamic must also be resonant and where the sum is in equilibrium. Now all the expressions you are using comes from discredited theories, where as mine comes from the existance of the Newtons boundary rules, gaussian postulate and and the combination of many inputs from the masters of that time that provided Maxwells laws. I am just using the existing classical rules of the day nothing is new and there is no reinvention of any kind. So I put it to you again that it unreasonable to quote hypothesis that have been proved not up to the task and to not provide supporting reason to discredit Maxwell,Gauss and the other masters on whose shoulders we stand on today. Forget about your beloved photons which you habitually use as a shell game to confuse onlookers and review which is considered correct up to "this particular point" instead of making giant hops up the ladder of knowledge like jumping the Grand canyon in two jumps. If you have good reason to diss the work of the masters then I am sure others will want to hear about it. Best regards, nothing personal intended Art snip -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Computer model experiment
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 27, 9:53Â*am, Cecil Moore wrote: On May 26, 6:52Â*pm, Art Unwin wrote: snip Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena. Now just hold on right there! As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word and not a noun Actually, the word "wave" can be an intransitive verb, a transitive verb, or a noun depending on usage. Go argue with the dictionary. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Computer model experiment
On May 27, 8:45*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: On May 27, 9:53*am, Cecil Moore wrote: On May 26, 6:52*pm, Art Unwin wrote: snip Nope, what we can say is that waves and their associated particles are dual manifestations of the same physical phenomena. Now just hold on right there! As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word and not a noun Actually, the word "wave" can be an intransitive verb, a transitive verb, or a noun depending on usage. Go argue with the dictionary. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. If you can prove your point against those of Gauss and Maxwell I will certainly follow you on your path that you advocate to describe and resolve the issue of radiation. If you are transcribing from a text book I will be happy to read it to ensure what you say is in context with respect to useage of the term "waves" before I get into the lock step mode. The bottom line is, neither mentioned waves and it is not meant for you or I to determine what he should have said in relating to what you believe he meant to say and if he agreed with any dictionary relevant to those times. But then you can introduce a king James version of what he meant together with a dictionary to match present day useage of the word! (smile) Have a happy day and push your anger aside. Art |
Computer model experiment
Art Unwin wrote:
snip 13 lines of babbling nonsense Have a happy day and push your anger aside. You mistake pity for anger. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com