On 24 Dec, 18:17, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

...
On 24 Dec, 16:32, "AI4QJ" wrote:





"Dave" wrote in message

news:kbWbj.14149$HQ6.9269@trndny01...

don't even bother starting... it was meant for art so he would know
there
are others who have just as strange a set of theories as he does.

I know.

I guess you don't have to go very far to see where some of these
extravagant
concepts originate. You don't have to google on diamagnetics very long
before you run into levitation and then videos of frogs floating in the
air
when subjected to 10T magnetic fields (which are true). From there it is
no
big deal to talk about levitating electrons from antennas and grand
unification theories which have their own large numbers of google hits.
Nothing need be left to the imagination; just fit the pieces of the puzzle
together like Einstein did except for....oops...one small detail: Albert
did
not depart from a strict mathematical model in favor of science fiction.
Was
that Diamagnetics ot dianetics? ;-))

-What is it that makes you and David so angry with somebody proposing a
-theory?
-Do you really think that all is known about radiation and thus you are
-firmly
-equipped to debunk change?

Electrons cannot be radiated from the surface of an antenna, diamagnetic or
otherwise. Think of it in terms of Guass's law: The E field resulting from
the charge on the antenna must always be equal to the charge on the other
side of an area integral of the projected *surface over the wire.

IF a net volume of charge exits the antenna, then we have an imbalance and a
violation of Gauss's static law on the other side of the Gaussian surface.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you are absolutely sure that your above analysis is correct and
without any
possible doubt what so ever and nothing to the contrary can possibly
be accepted
based on your perceived logic that your brain cannot be wrong with
respect
to its analytical processes?
Then how do you explain that using Gaussian logic or model that you
are quoting
is the same as Maxwells law when a time varient is added?
And to repeat my earlier question, what is it that makes you and David
so angry
at the suggestion of an alternate theory?
Art