Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:21:12 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Almost all energy is in visible light.

Actually, most EM energy is above and below the very limited visible
spectrum and EM energy is only one of many types of energy. You would not
be able to survive close proximity to the gamma rays from a pulsar long
enough to see where they were coming from.

In Jeff greenhouse no rays from a pulsar.
S*

In Szczepan Bialek head no functioning neurons.

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, June 29, 2012 2:38:18 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Light (and radio waves) are made up of electrons, according to Faraday,
L.
Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac.

Please find a time machine and go back to the time when physicists were so
ignorant that they believed such nonsense.

EM waves are older than Tesla and Dirac:
"In the year 1884 Oliver Heaviside selected these four equations, and in
conjunction with Willard Gibbs, he put them into modern vector notation.
This gives rise to the claim by some scientists that Maxwell's equations are
in actual fact Heaviside's equations.
The matter is further confused by the fact that the term 'Maxwell's
Equations' is also used to describe a set of eight equations labelled (A) to
(H) in Maxwell's 1864 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field.
It therefore helps when referring to 'Maxwell's Equations' to specify
whether we are talking about the original eight equations or the modified
'Heaviside Four'.

Gauss's Law is the only equation that appears in both sets, however the
Maxwell/Ampère equation in the 'Heaviside Four' is an amalgamation of two
equations in the original eight." From:
http://users.aims.ac.za/~franckm/Maxwell's_equations.html

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.

The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

Faraday, L. Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac were ignorant?

S*.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field" and
"oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.


Kindest regards, Ian.

On Friday, June 29, 2012 11:58:27 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
Faraday, L. Lorentz, Tesla and Dirac were ignorant?

Yes, indeed, they were ignorant of the standard model of quantum physics but they had a good excuse for their ignorance. What is your excuse?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

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".

Each wave is the oscillatory flow:
"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

The " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .

The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

In 1867 Lorenz wrote: " Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the

No one care; it is 2012.

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".

Each wave is the oscillatory flow:
"Stokes drift may occur in all instances of oscillatory flow which are
inhomogeneous in space."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift

The " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Just a big pile of babbling, word salad, gibberish.

You are an idiot.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...
The Heaviside's EM is usefull for the near-field.
The "far-field" is the oscillatory flow of electrons.

S*.

Hello Szczepan. Please explain, in your own words, to help me understand
what you are trying to say, the meaning of
"near-field",
"far-field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_region

and "oscillatory flow of electrons". No quoting from web pages or books.

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 " backward and forward motions of particles" are always not simmetric.
The forward is always stronger.
S*

Hello Szczepan .
I see you aren't able to explain "oscillatory flow of electrons" in your
own words.
With " backward and forward motions of particles" I would have asked
"backwards and forwards relative to what" but I suspect that you can't
explain this in your own words.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:03:53 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

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."

The aether drift theory was disproven in 1905 (as published by
Michelson and Morley):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Please try to keep up to date:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

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

On 6/30/2012 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:03:53 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

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."

The aether drift theory was disproven in 1905 (as published by
Michelson and Morley):

Actually, Jeff, I don't think it was disproven. In what world do you
maintain that lack of evidence is proof of non-existance?

(By the way, I'm on their side.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
Please try to keep up to date:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:06:01 -0500, John S
wrote:

On 6/30/2012 6:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:03:53 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

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."

The aether drift theory was disproven in 1905 (as published by
Michelson and Morley):

Oops. The 1905 date should be 1887.

Actually, Jeff, I don't think it was disproven. In what world do you
maintain that lack of evidence is proof of non-existance?

Yeah, I know. Absense of proof is not proof of absensce. At the
time, it was much like dark matter. There's plenty of evidence to
suggest that it might exist, but no experimental proof.

Many scientists have produced results both postive and "lack of
evidence" for the aether drift along the way. Michelson Morley was
the first reproducable test that failed to show the existence of a
luminiferous aether wind, thus suggesting that it might be rubbish.

(By the way, I'm on their side.)

Plenty of sides to choose from. Today, the consensus is that there is
no aether wind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether
However, if it did exist, it might help explain why I can hear a DX
station, but they never seem to hear me. Asymmetrical skip perhaps?
My signal goes easier or farther downwind?

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