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.

Waves, particles, neutrinos, solar fairy dust.. It doesn't
matter how he describes it. It's still not going turn a dummy
load into an efficient antenna.
What is peculiar is that he's trying to conjure up a scientific
theory to explain the operation of an antenna, or maybe
antennas, which don't even work as advertised. :/

Why aren't the magical properties of equilibrium, neutrinos,
and magic levitating vortex swirls saving the "Unwinstick"
contra wound 160m dummy load from it's bottom basement
performance as a radiator of RF?

Mona Lisa has a mustache and hairy legs... :/

Computer model experiment
 

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:57:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun

Let's see where the descriptive wave (not a noun) leads us.
Wave-and-go cashcard: contactless payment system.
Wave aquatics: a competitive swim program.
Wave church: "we invite you to be a part of Wave Women."
Wave dash: a technique in Melee that causes a character to slide along
the ground without walking or running.
Wave extension: hair, also called a "fall."
Wave grease: more hair, control pomade.
Wavey gravy: psychedelic sauce.
Wave hook: antenna.
Wave iron: even more hair, for curling.
Wave jumper: a boat.
Wave keyboard: what you type on if you are really kewel.
Wave machine: something one would find at a water park.
Wave meter: a tunable cavity with a frequency scale.
Wave scholarship: The Washington Award for Vocational Excellence.
and probably some more.

Which one is being talked about?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Computer model experiment
 

On May 28, 1:15*am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:57:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun

Let's see where the descriptive wave (not a noun) leads us. *
Wave-and-go cashcard: contactless payment system. *
Wave aquatics: a competitive swim program. *
Wave church: "we invite you to be a part of Wave Women."
Wave dash: a technique in Melee that causes a character to slide along
the ground without walking or running.
Wave extension: hair, also called a "fall."
Wave grease: more hair, control pomade.
Wavey gravy: psychedelic sauce. *
Wave hook: antenna. *
Wave iron: even more hair, for curling.
Wave jumper: a boat.
Wave keyboard: what you type on if you are really kewel.
Wave machine: something one would find at a water park. *
Wave meter: a tunable cavity with a frequency scale. *
Wave scholarship: The Washington Award for Vocational Excellence. *
and probably some more.

Which one is being talked about?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dunno, but that wasn't me who wrote what you quoted..

The "wave church" sounds interesting though..
Wave wimmerns..Sounds dangerous. I bet they surf too.
Top that off with a little wavy gravy, and a handful of
Dapper Dan wave grease for tunable cavity equilibrium...
:/

This movie is starting to get too scary. :(
I better turn off the TV and go to bed.

Computer model experiment
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 27, 5:29 pm, "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

Maxwell's math from any date describes the Maxwell hipothesis on massive
magnetic whirl.

, and even the publication of
gauss' law... so much development was done in em theories after that
date.

"EM theory" was stripped away by scientists and anybody developed it.
All works with electrons.

Heaviside who wrote the set of "maxwell's equations" was an engineer.
Teachers adopt the equations to teach the match.

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.

The magnetic substance do not exists but you still are living with it.

In space is plasma (ions and electrons) and dust. That all rotate with the
Sun.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Computer model experiment
 

On May 28, 7:29*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In space is plasma (ions and electrons) and dust. That all rotate with the
Sun.
S*

well, not quite. they get slower as they move out from the sun. look
at the trajectories of solar wind and how it winds out in a spiral.
if that was the carrier of light it would severely distort our view of
the sun. as it is we can easily see the difference between the speed
of light and the speed of shock waves of plasma (longitudinal waves)
in space... the difference is minutes for light to get here up to days
for plasma waves.

Computer model experiment
 

On May 28, 8:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

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.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, you are missing a basic point about physics.
Classical physics is seen as factual. All other theorems are
replacement attempts to explain paradoxies provided by classical
physics. When ever one reads the duality theorem it is exactly that, a
theorem which many say is a myth that is being perpetuated, but even
so they declare the wave as a function purely because of mathematical
reasons that the wave function has the same mathematics that can be
traced back to those provided by a particle.
Even so, classical physics holds the major spot in physics where all
other theorems are attempts to topple its position as a collection or
laws or facts.
Maxwell's equations as are equations by Gauss,
Faraday are today considered to be facts that have yet to be
overturned. Tho I call my work a theorem I can just as easily call
them a series of facts which are still accepted to this day. My
findings only uses facts. Classical physics has yet to be dethroned.
The masters were very smart people who were very careful with words
and interpretations of the visibles whereas even today the double
split experiment is torn with missinterpretations in continuation of a
unproven theory
None of the accepted facts that I have used mention the term of waves
and since these laws are part of classical physics I hold to them.
There has not been any theorem that has been expanded to the status of
a law such that classical
physics has been displaced. I am using only what Einstein failed to
locate that which he needed to
further his leanings towards the Standard Model and it was only this
failure that provided a reason to
look for different viewpoints.
If you have reason to displace the legitamacy of Classical Physics as
used by me then state them.
What I have used is short and to the point so I am not presenting a
hardship to whome I consider as a qualified engineer
My best regards
Art

Computer model experiment
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 28, 7:29 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In space is plasma (ions and electrons) and dust. That all rotate with
the
Sun.
S*

well, not quite. they get slower as they move out from the sun.

That is obvious. Each star has his own whirl.

look
at the trajectories of solar wind and how it winds out in a spiral.
if that was the carrier of light it would severely distort our view of
the sun.

The math for this was done by Stokes before 1850.

as it is we can easily see the difference between the speed
of light and the speed of shock waves of plasma (longitudinal waves)
in space... the difference is minutes for light to get here up to days
for plasma waves.

The oldest telephone was made from string and cans. We can use the metal
wire.
In the wire can travel the sound waves and the electric waves. The speeds
are also different.
In plasma the ions are the medium for shock waves and the electrons for the
electric waves.

You know almost everything. But you do not know that the teachers are very
nice people who must every year look for new nice students and next look
after them. So they have no time to observe what the scientists and
engineers are doing. They are using the same "pieces to teach".
They started teaching of Copernican's theory 250 years after publication.
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 28, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 28, 8:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

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.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, you are missing a basic point about physics.
Classical physics is seen as factual. All other theorems are
replacement attempts to explain paradoxies provided by classical
physics. When ever one reads the duality theorem it is exactly that, a
theorem which many say is a myth that is being perpetuated, but even
so they declare the wave as a function purely because of mathematical
reasons that the wave function has the same mathematics that can be
traced back to those *provided by a particle.
Even so, classical physics holds the major spot in physics where all
other theorems are attempts to topple its position as a collection or
laws or facts.
Maxwell's equations *as are equations by Gauss,
Faraday are today considered to be facts that have yet to be
overturned. Tho I call my work a theorem I can just as easily call
them a series of facts which are still accepted to this day. My
findings only uses facts. Classical physics has yet to be dethroned.
The masters were very smart people who were very careful with words
and interpretations of the visibles whereas even today the double
split experiment is torn with missinterpretations in continuation of a
unproven theory
None of the accepted facts that I have used mention the term of waves
and since these laws are part of classical physics I hold to them.
There has not been any theorem that has been expanded to the status of
a law such that classical
physics has been displaced. I am using only what Einstein failed to
locate that which he needed to
further his leanings towards the Standard Model and it was only this
failure that provided a reason to
look for different viewpoints.
If you have reason to displace the legitamacy of Classical Physics as
used by me *then state them.
What I have used is short and to the point so I am not presenting a
hardship to whome I consider as a qualified engineer
My best regards
Art

classical physics has been well dethroned by both relativity at the
high velocity end and quantum mechanics at the small side of the
scale. classical physics does good at 'every day' speeds and for
macroscopic things... the types of things that newton and his
contemporaries would have been able to experiment with. they could
not have known or measured things at very high energies as seen at
relativistic speeds, nor could they have measured things at subatomic
levels where the 'classical' laws break down.

Computer model experiment
 

On May 28, 5:35*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Computer model experiment
 

On May 28, 7:17*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 28, 8:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

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.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, you are missing a basic point about physics.
Classical physics is seen as factual. All other theorems are
replacement attempts to explain paradoxies provided by classical
physics. When ever one reads the duality theorem it is exactly that, a
theorem which many say is a myth that is being perpetuated, but even
so they declare the wave as a function purely because of mathematical
reasons that the wave function has the same mathematics that can be
traced back to those *provided by a particle.
Even so, classical physics holds the major spot in physics where all
other theorems are attempts to topple its position as a collection or
laws or facts.
Maxwell's equations *as are equations by Gauss,
Faraday are today considered to be facts that have yet to be
overturned. Tho I call my work a theorem I can just as easily call
them a series of facts which are still accepted to this day. My
findings only uses facts. Classical physics has yet to be dethroned.
The masters were very smart people who were very careful with words
and interpretations of the visibles whereas even today the double
split experiment is torn with missinterpretations in continuation of a
unproven theory
None of the accepted facts that I have used mention the term of waves
and since these laws are part of classical physics I hold to them.
There has not been any theorem that has been expanded to the status of
a law such that classical
physics has been displaced. I am using only what Einstein failed to
locate that which he needed to
further his leanings towards the Standard Model and it was only this
failure that provided a reason to
look for different viewpoints.
If you have reason to displace the legitamacy of Classical Physics as
used by me *then state them.
What I have used is short and to the point so I am not presenting a
hardship to whome I consider as a qualified engineer
My best regards
Art

classical physics has been well dethroned by both relativity at the
high velocity end and quantum mechanics at the small side of the
scale. *classical physics does good at 'every day' speeds and for
macroscopic things... the types of things that newton and his
contemporaries would have been able to experiment with. *they could
not have known or measured things at very high energies as seen at
relativistic speeds, nor could they have measured things at subatomic
levels where the 'classical' laws break down.

K1RRR@ARRL posting response by Art Unwin

Are you saying that the laws of Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Gauss is
now defunct? What should I have used in their place if they were no
good in the areas that I worked with?
Why on earth did NEC work around the equations
of Maxwell when they had been toppled? I used Newton,Faraday,Maxwell
and Gauss's laws only.
Who and what has replaced them in the areas where I mistakenly used
them. Did Ohms laws
survive this onslaught and who got the award from Oslo? I would like
to have another stab at my work
using the data that has replaced them, so I could do with some
guidance from you so my work is not wasted again. Do you know what the
replacement antenna computer programs will be based upon and are any
presently available on the market?
Thanks for the update. Why not share what you have with QST so your
fellow hams may benefit
from the up to dated textbooks now supplied to the new generation in
Universities. I heard that Texas
is redoing all the school textbooks but I didn't realize that
education had taken such a radical change. And of course as science is
changed in Texas so goes the whole Country. On another thought, will
degrees obtained before this update be grandfathered in?
My very best regards
Art Unwin

Computer model experiment
 

On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

tom
K0TAR

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

You know almost all but only almost.

There are many aethers. One of them was Lorentz' aether in form of
motionless solid body. No such without any doubts. So it is obvious that it
is debunked.

You know that the Sun rotate together with the plasma and the dust. The
plasma and the dust is the Stokes' aether.
In that time another scientist Ludvig Lorenz was sure that in space is
enough matter to propagate the waves.
Both of them did not know that the electron exist.

Teachers could not stay up to date because the all is the top secret.
S*

Computer model experiment
 

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

I am in Stokes' time. Art citates the all super modern theories. Where you
see the synchronisation?
S*

Computer model experiment
 

On May 29, 7:11*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomoscinews:4c00720a$0$50153$8046368a@newsreade r.iphouse.net...

On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan *wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. *aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. *Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

I am in Stokes' time. Art citates the all super modern theories. Where you
see the synchronisation?
S*

no, art is stuck in newton's time, so you aren't that far apart.

Computer model experiment
 

On May 29, 1:28*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 28, 7:17*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On May 28, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 28, 8:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

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.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, you are missing a basic point about physics.
Classical physics is seen as factual. All other theorems are
replacement attempts to explain paradoxies provided by classical
physics. When ever one reads the duality theorem it is exactly that, a
theorem which many say is a myth that is being perpetuated, but even
so they declare the wave as a function purely because of mathematical
reasons that the wave function has the same mathematics that can be
traced back to those *provided by a particle.
Even so, classical physics holds the major spot in physics where all
other theorems are attempts to topple its position as a collection or
laws or facts.
Maxwell's equations *as are equations by Gauss,
Faraday are today considered to be facts that have yet to be
overturned. Tho I call my work a theorem I can just as easily call
them a series of facts which are still accepted to this day. My
findings only uses facts. Classical physics has yet to be dethroned.
The masters were very smart people who were very careful with words
and interpretations of the visibles whereas even today the double
split experiment is torn with missinterpretations in continuation of a
unproven theory
None of the accepted facts that I have used mention the term of waves
and since these laws are part of classical physics I hold to them.
There has not been any theorem that has been expanded to the status of
a law such that classical
physics has been displaced. I am using only what Einstein failed to
locate that which he needed to
further his leanings towards the Standard Model and it was only this
failure that provided a reason to
look for different viewpoints.
If you have reason to displace the legitamacy of Classical Physics as
used by me *then state them.
What I have used is short and to the point so I am not presenting a
hardship to whome I consider as a qualified engineer
My best regards
Art

classical physics has been well dethroned by both relativity at the
high velocity end and quantum mechanics at the small side of the
scale. *classical physics does good at 'every day' speeds and for
macroscopic things... the types of things that newton and his
contemporaries would have been able to experiment with. *they could
not have known or measured things at very high energies as seen at
relativistic speeds, nor could they have measured things at subatomic
levels where the 'classical' laws break down.

K1RRR@ARRL posting response by Art Unwin

Are you saying that the laws of Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Gauss is
now defunct? What should I have used in their place if they were no
good in the areas that I worked with?
Why on earth did NEC work around the equations
of Maxwell when they had been toppled? I used Newton,Faraday,Maxwell
and Gauss's laws only.
Who and what has replaced them in the areas where I mistakenly used
them. Did Ohms laws
survive this onslaught and who got the award from Oslo? I would like
to have another stab at my work
using the data that has replaced them, so I could do with some
guidance from you so my work is not wasted again. Do you know what the
replacement antenna computer programs will be based upon and are any
presently available on the market?
Thanks for the update. Why not share what you have with QST so your
fellow hams may benefit
from the up to dated textbooks now supplied to the new generation in
Universities. I heard that Texas
is redoing all the school textbooks but I didn't realize that
education had taken such a radical change. And of course as science is
changed in Texas so goes the whole Country. On another thought, will
degrees obtained before this update be grandfathered in?
My very best regards
Art Unwin

fortunately maxwell's equations work just fine for macroscopic stuff
like hams use, so you are still ok with those. when someone writes an
antenna program that uses qed you might want to upgrade though. and
newton still works for most cases you will ever run into, though it
would fail to explain some effects if you carried an atomic clock on a
high speed jet or tried to orbit your own satellite. Ohm's law is
still fine for anything you will do also, unless you really tried to
get into superconductive antennas, then you might have some problems.

Computer model experiment
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

I am in Stokes' time. Art citates the all super modern theories. Where you
see the synchronisation?
S*

You are both babbling kooks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Computer model experiment
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

You know almost all but only almost.

There are many aethers. One of them was Lorentz' aether in form of
motionless solid body. No such without any doubts. So it is obvious that it
is debunked.

You know that the Sun rotate together with the plasma and the dust. The
plasma and the dust is the Stokes' aether.
In that time another scientist Ludvig Lorenz was sure that in space is
enough matter to propagate the waves.
Both of them did not know that the electron exist.

Teachers could not stay up to date because the all is the top secret.
S*

Babbling idiot.

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Computer model experiment
 

On May 28, 9:46*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:

On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan *wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. *aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. *Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

tom
K0TAR

Even the same font, A's with krouzek(sp?)