In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

Light and radio waves are the same.

Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."

He was wrong on several counts.

He also died well before Einstein and others came along and got it right.

That's the problem with obsessing over stuff that was written 150 years
ago, a lot of it was found to be wrong.

Lorenz was wrong about the composition of light.

Marconi was wrong about antennas having to be grounded to work.

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

Nope, in todays words light is electromagnetic radiation that is visible
to the human eye.

Light and radio waves are the same.

This is one of the very few true statements you have ever made.

Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish.

On 4/19/2012 12:47 PM, wrote:


Marconi was wrong about antennas having to be grounded to work.

I think that's a good thing. We wouldn't get signals from satellites
otherwise.

Actually, that begs the question "which planet is the real ground"?

John
KD5YI

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 4/19/2012 12:47 PM, wrote:


Marconi was wrong about antennas having to be grounded to work.

I think that's a good thing. We wouldn't get signals from satellites
otherwise.

Actually, that begs the question "which planet is the real ground"?

John
KD5YI


Reckon we could hang a dipole all the way from the earth to the moon?
What gain would it have and what frequency would it resonate on, I wonder.

73, Ian.

On 4/19/2012 2:07 PM, Ian wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 4/19/2012 12:47 PM, wrote:


Marconi was wrong about antennas having to be grounded to work.

I think that's a good thing. We wouldn't get signals from satellites
otherwise.

Actually, that begs the question "which planet is the real ground"?

John
KD5YI


Reckon we could hang a dipole all the way from the earth to the moon?

No.

What gain would it have and what frequency would it resonate on, I wonder.

Well, lessee... gain would be the same as any dipole, i.e. about 1.76dBi
not considering resistive losses because you did not specify a conductor
size. Resonant frequency would be ~.372 Hz. This does not include the
"capacitive hats" of the earth and moon.

73, Ian.

Where would "ground" be?

73,
John

"John S" wrote in message
...
On 4/19/2012 2:07 PM, Ian wrote:
"John wrote in message
...
On 4/19/2012 12:47 PM, wrote:


Marconi was wrong about antennas having to be grounded to work.

I think that's a good thing. We wouldn't get signals from satellites
otherwise.

Actually, that begs the question "which planet is the real ground"?

John
KD5YI


Reckon we could hang a dipole all the way from the earth to the moon?

No.

What gain would it have and what frequency would it resonate on, I
wonder.

Well, lessee... gain would be the same as any dipole, i.e. about 1.76dBi
not considering resistive losses because you did not specify a conductor
size. Resonant frequency would be ~.372 Hz. This does not include the
"capacitive hats" of the earth and moon.

73, Ian.

Where would "ground" be?

73,
John
John, "ground" is so "last century" along with "dial-up" and "Cathode Ray
Tube in my television".
Forget "ground". Say "planet" instead. Is that better?

73, Ian.

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On 19/04/2012 08:55, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the
vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301"

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJd...page&q&f=false

On p. 301 he wrote:
"The present general opinion regards light as consisting of backward and
forward motions of particles of aether."
If this were the case the electrical current would be the progressive
motion
of the aether in the direction of the electrical current."

In today's words: "Light is the oscillatory flow of electrons".

Light and radio waves are the same.

Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?
S*



The present general opinion *DOES NOT* regards light or *Radio waves* as
consisting of backward and forward motions of particles of aether.

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).
So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).

No, it does not.

So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish and you are an idiot.

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).

No, it does not.

So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish and you are an
idiot.

Not me but Stokes:
"The Stokes drift is important for the mass transfer of all kind of
materials and organisms by oscillatory flows."

Here you are the "oscillatory water flow".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
The " "oscillatory flow of electrons" is in the Dirac electron sea.
Each wave are inherently non symmetric.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news
Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The present general opinion regards the space as "rare plasma" (ions and
electrons).

No, it does not.

So Are the radio waves the oscillatory flow of electrons?

No.

The phrase "oscillatory flow of electrons" is gibberish and you are an
idiot.

Not me but Stokes:
"The Stokes drift is important for the mass transfer of all kind of
materials and organisms by oscillatory flows."

Here you are the "oscillatory water flow".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De...ee_periods.gif
The " "oscillatory flow of electrons" is in the Dirac electron sea.
Each wave are inherently non symmetric.
S*


According to Wikipedia, Stokes Drift applies to wave motion in fluid
dynamics. The article predominantly mentions water. Article makes no mention
of its application to radio signals.