Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"W5DXP" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Friday, July 20, 2012 1:41:11 PM UTC-5, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
In physics is only one field.

Strange - the extremely well respected physics book, "Principles of
Optics" written by Born and Wolf talks about the E-field and H-field -
Section 1.4.1 "The general electromagnetic plane wave, page 23, 4th
edition.

I wrote: "That fields and the gravity are only in the textbooks (as e
sperate
chapters).
They are also in engineering."

Yes, you did, and it is all stupid, babbling, gibberish with no connection
to the real world

Heaviside and Pointing assumed: "In this case very near the wire, and within
it, the lines of magnetic force are circles round the axis of the wire. The
lines of electric force are along the wire,"
So they had the result: "The whole of the energy then enters in through the
external surface of the wire, and by the general theorem the amount entering
in must just account for the heat developed owing to the resistance, since
if the current is steady there is no other alteration of energy. It is,
perhaps, worth while to show independently in this case that the energy
moving in, in accordance with the general law, will just account for the
heat developed." From:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the...gnetic_F ield

Is it true now?

You are such a moron you don't have a clue wht the above is talking about.

It is refering to DC magnetic fields.

"the lines of magnetic force are circles round the axis of the wire" is the
Biot-Savart law.

In physics no magnetic monopoles and no the lines of magnetic force.

In physics, no magnetic monopole has been found and lines of magenetic
force is a well known concept to everyone but you.

If you read the whole article you see that Pointing was full of doubts.
Heavisde was en engineer and Pointing was a teacher:

Poynting was a physicist, you babbling moron.

"Poynting and the Nobel prizewinner J. J. Thomson co-authored a multi-volume
undergraduate physics textbook, which was in print for about 50 years and
was in widespread use during the first third of the 20th century.[5]
Poynting wrote most of it.[6]"

So what, you babbling idiot, lots of physicists write textbooks.

It is not easy to explain physics to children and engineers.

Actually, it is quite easy to teach normal children and engineers, but
it would be impossible to teach anything to a moron like you.

I am not a teacher and a textbook writer.

No, you are a babbling moron.

But I know that the electrons are.

You don't know what ANYTHING is.

Heaviside and Pointing did not that when
they wrote EM.
S*

You are an ignorant, babbling, ineducable idiot who knows absolutely
NOTHING about how ANYTHING works.

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

Electrostatic and magnetostatic fields are created by DC.

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.

That is ELECTROMAGNETIC energy, not magnetostatic nor electrostatic
energy.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biot%E2%80%93Savart_law

"The Biot-Savart law is fundamental to magnetostatics, playing a similar
role to Coulomb's law in electrostatics. When magnetostatics does not
apply, the Biot-Savart law should be replaced by Jefimenko's equations."

What that means, you babbling idiot, is that Jefimenko's equations apply
to antennas, not the Biot-Savart law or Coulomb's law.

Jefimenko's equations were first published in the 1960's so anything
written before then is essentially irrelevant to a discussion of antennas.

Since an antenna is defined in terms of it's terminals, anything that
may be connected to the terminals, such as a balun or a transmission
line, has NOTHING to do with what the antenna is or how the antenna
operates.

What that means is that ONLY the voltage at the antenna terminals
effect what is going to happen, NOT how the voltage got there.

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 electromagntics
in any language?

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