Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
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. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
"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/Ampčre 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*. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
"Ian" napisał w wiadomości ... "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* |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
"Ian" napisał w wiadomości ... "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... 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. "More generally, the Stokes drift velocity is the difference between theaverage Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the averageEulerian flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This nonlinearphenomenon is named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived expressions for this drift in his 1847 study of water waves." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift S* |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
... "Ian" napisał w wiadomości ... "Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message ... 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. "More generally, the Stokes drift velocity is the difference between theaverage Lagrangian flow velocity of a fluid parcel, and the averageEulerian flow velocity of the fluid at a fixed position. This nonlinearphenomenon is named after George Gabriel Stokes, who derived expressions for this drift in his 1847 study of water waves." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes_drift S* Hello Szczepan . Thank you for proving my point and showing that you do not understand things. Regards, Ian. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
loop antennas and noise suppresion
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Low Noise receiving Loop antenna | Antenna | |||
Loop Antennas | Antenna | |||
Loop Antennas | Antenna | |||
HF Loop Antennas | Antenna | |||
Loop vx Folded Dipole noise factor | Antenna |