On 7/22/2012 5:14 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote:"light may be treated". MAY
instead"Without of any doubts".

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far. Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century physics. Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less ignorant than 19th century folk.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

But authors then said different. They say things that are not agreed to
by author today who no knowing what they are meaning.

Or something like that.

tom
K0TAR

napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light,
while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could
be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel


Light may also be treated as photons.

Yes. In one chapter as waves and in the next as particles.

But it means only that you do not know what the light is.
S*

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts";.

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know
that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the
additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned
experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge
builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support
the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far.
Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have
progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century
physics.

The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less
ignorant than 19th century folk.

In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave energy
into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best
"knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.
S*

Every time yet another post on this subject arrives, I can't help
thinking of the limerick about the 'Young man of Devizes' (a small town
in Wiltshire, England). Those who have no idea what I'm talking about
can Google.

Perhaps there's a similar one about a radio amateur whose dipole had
unequal wire sizes?
--
Ian

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave
energy into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the
best "knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.
S*
Oh dear! The Wiki page tells us that a rectenna converts microwave energy
then says, inconsistently, that crystal radios (which operate on MW and LW)
are rectennas.
I think the rectenna was mentioned by Szczepan several months ago - are we
going around the loop once more?

Is it worth commenting about scientific method, theory and fact?
I'll say that reading Szczepan's postings makes a good spectator sport.

73, Ian.

On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:37:23 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

But that has since been proved not to be a fact, i.e. their theory has been disproved. Just as Issac Newton's discoveries were a little off, so were the "Giants" about which you speak. In RF conductors, electrons do oscillate but they are much too slow to "flow". I can crawl on my knees faster than electrons flow in a wire and that has been proved by actual measurements. The RF fields/waves that are flowing around a conductor at the speed of light are photons like the ones you are using to read this screen, just at a different frequency. When you realize what is the nature of the thing that is incident upon your retina, you will understand EM radiation.

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

The one that agrees with the latest experimental measurements. Einstein's theory that gravity curves space was just a theory until proved valid by actual experimental measurements. The CERN Large Hadron Collider is providing actual experimental measurements as we speak. If the measurements disagree with the Standard Model, we will have to change the Standard Model.

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.

We will probably never know all the "facts" - the best we can do is become less ignorant. All of our models of reality exist in human minds filtered through human senses none of which are perfect. For instance, entangled particles seem to violate the spirit of the speed of light limit, yet they have been proved to exist by experiments. And how is it possible for a huge carbon Buckyball to pass through two slots at the same time and interfere with itself on the other side? Seems to me that the particle is creating a wavefront in the structure of space.

The best models are the ones that best match the latest experimental evidence. Some of yours do not match the latest experimental evidence at all, i.e.. seems that you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant (or just pulling our legs).
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Ian Jackson" napisal w wiadomosci
...
Every time yet another post on this subject arrives, I can't help thinking
of the limerick about the 'Young man of Devizes' (a small town in
Wiltshire, England). Those who have no idea what I'm talking about can
Google.

Perhaps there's a similar one about a radio amateur whose dipole had
unequal wire sizes?

"End-Fed Center-Fed Dipole (AKA Coaxial Vertical Dipole)

Really, that description is correct. Primarily constructed with coaxial
cable the one half wave vertical dipole is fed from its bottom but the coax
shield is left in place only up to near the center point (about ¼ wave but
the exact end point for terminating the shielding is determined by tuning)
which becomes the actual "feed-point" ergo, the description. The center
conductor continues up for about ¼ wave past the point of termination of the
shield." From:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ter-Fed-Dipole

Are the wires equal or unequal?
Is it dipole, monopole or "dipole"?
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
Szczepan Bialek wrote:


"" In 1817, Young had proposed a small transverse component to light,
while
yet retaining a far larger longitudinal component. Fresnel, by the year
1821, was able to show via mathematical methods that polarization could
be
explained only if light was entirely transverse, with no longitudinal
vibration whatsoever.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel


Light may also be treated as photons.

Yes. In one chapter as waves and in the next as particles.

What in the hell are you babbling about with "one chapter" and "next"?

But it means only that you do not know what the light is.

Everyone but you knows what light is.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about anything.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anything
in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 1:04:22 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Authors MAY know that. So they wrote: "light may be treated". MAY
instead "Without of any doubts";.

Of course, technical authors avoid absolute assertions because they know
that almost all knowledge is proven inaccurate sooner or later by the
additional acquisition of human knowledge driven by finer-tuned
experiments. What you don't seem to understand is that technical knowledge
builds upon technical knowledge so that the latest theories that support
the latest experiments are the best "knowledge" that we have so far.
Without the 19th century giants in the field of physics, we couldn't have
progressed this far, but those giants were simply ignorant of 21st century
physics.

The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons.

The "Giants" were wrong, light is no such thing, and you are a moron.

Today we too, are still ignorant to a certain extent, but hopefully less
ignorant than 19th century folk.

In XX century was done the first rectenna: "A rectenna is a rectifying
antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert microwave energy
into direct current electricity. "
In XXI century are the optical rectennas.

Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light.

But the first were the crystal radio:
"The simplest crystal radio receiver, employing an antenna and a
demodulating diode (rectifier), is actually a rectenna".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

Irrelevant to anything to do with the nature of light other than to show
light and radio waves have the same properties.

You wrote "latest theories that support the latest experiments are the best
"knowledge" that we have so far".

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

Generally, the latest ones which have more experiments and data to back
them up.

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.

To be Szczepan Bialek means to be an ignorant, ineducable, moron.

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about antennas or how they work.

You don't even understand what an antenna is or the difference between
an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electromagnetic field.

An antenna is a device that converts the AC electrical energy at it's
teminals into electromagnetic energy which radiates from the antenna
and also coverts the electromagnetic energy which antenna intercepts
into AC electrical energy at it's terminals.

A rectenna is simply an antenna with something that acts as a diode at
it's terminals to convert the AC to DC.

How many antennas have you built in your lifetime?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Is it because you have built zero antennas and you are trying to say all
the people that have successfully built hundreds that they are all wrong
and you don't want to admit you are an ignorant, inducable, idiot?

Why can't you obtain and read a university level textbook on anthing
in any language?

Is it because you are too stupid to be able to understand the material?

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:37:23 AM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
The Giants discovered in XIX century that light is the oscillatory flow
of
electrons.

But that has since been proved not to be a fact, i.e. their theory has been
disproved. Just as Issac Newton's discoveries were a little off, so were
the "Giants" about which you speak. In RF conductors, electrons do
oscillate but they are much too slow to "flow".

They jump off from the end (corona) after the time equal to speed of light.
They do not flow from the transmitter to the end of antenna. They kick the
next ones. It is the oscillatory flow.

I can crawl on my knees faster than electrons flow in a wire and that has
been proved by actual measurements. The RF fields/waves that are flowing
around a conductor at the speed of light are photons like the ones you are
using to read this screen, just at a different frequency. When you realize
what is the nature of the thing that is incident upon your retina, you
will understand EM radiation.

In textbooks are Heaviside's and Pointing's EM. Are They Giants?

But there are plenty of theories. Which one is the best?

The one that agrees with the latest experimental measurements. Einstein's
theory that gravity curves space was just a theory until proved valid by
actual experimental measurements. The CERN Large Hadron Collider is
providing actual experimental measurements as we speak. If the measurements
disagree with the Standard Model, we will have to change the Standard
Model.

Hertz did the experimental measurements of waves from the dipole
(polarisation, refraction etc.)
Do you know something about the Marconi antenna?

To have knowledge means know the facts not theories.

We will probably never know all the "facts" - the best we can do is become
less ignorant. All of our models of reality exist in human minds filtered
through human senses none of which are perfect. For instance, entangled
particles seem to violate the spirit of the speed of light limit, yet they
have been proved to exist by experiments. And how is it possible for a huge
carbon Buckyball to pass through two slots at the same time and interfere
with itself on the other side? Seems to me that the particle is creating a
wavefront in the structure of space.

The best models are the ones that best match the latest experimental
evidence. Some of yours do not match the latest experimental evidence at
all, i.e. seems that you are deliberately choosing to remain ignorant (or
just pulling our legs).

The papers of Giants are now available. Try to compare the papers by
Heaviside-Pointing and Dirac.
Dirac was an engineer so he was tought on Heaviside-Pointing's EM. Dirac
never even mentioned EM.

Ia trying to pull you from the textbooks (where all is simplified) to the
paper of Giants.
S*