On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:30:23 -0700, art wrote:

With respect to waves scientists state there are two types of waves!

Hi Arthur,

They would (without breathless exclamation) explain they are ordinary
and for centuries have been called transverse and longitudinal.

It would appear that more experimentation is to take place before this
can be resoved.

For those same centuries, experimentation has been ongoing and has no
implied necessity of stopping to ponder (aka resolving) any new wonder
of Physics. The only surprise can come from one who misapplies these
conventional terms - NEWS at 11!

In that regard, the news is sadly of the Fox headlines variety that
streams across the screen below creationist-intellectuals (sic)
screaming about the pollution of science (sic) with humanistic
left-wing bias. Those snippets of disneyfied science will inform
(sic) you about mind control through sonic waves never before known
(sic) to have that ability.

A scientist would explain it was due to enormous power levels
compressing the medium to non-linearity wherein a second source could
mix with it to produce heterodyning. The second source could be
modulated with a voice such that the target (a person) would hear "God
speaking to them." That being the breathlessly announced mind
control. I should quickly modify that with: a scientist would attempt
to explain, but sonic mind control of the rather more prosaic means of
yelling would overwhelm him, followed by a break for a commercial and
the hosts' call for Fox security to take the heretic away.

Sound, by the way, consists of both transverse and longitudinal wave
components. This becomes meaningful if your detector (antenna) is
small in relation to the wavelength. And as few relate Photons to
sound, they should be advised the two are quite integral to the most
commonplace reactions. For some, this may take quite some time to
resolve.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Harrison wrote:
John Smith wrote:
"The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof
is hard to come by."

Proof of the wave property is abundant. Electrical energy escapes into
free space in the form of waves. Countless observations prove it.
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard:

You sing to the choir, and waves need a media to propagate through/on
.... plus, just as an extra kicker, they appear enough as particles to
have an arguable point--which brings us here.

Well, unless that thinking is wrong and there is no ether (medium.)
And, radio "waves" are nothing but flying packets of energy stings ...
scratches head

Warmest regards,
JS

On 30 Aug, 10:32, John Smith wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
John Smith wrote:
"The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof
is hard to come by."

Proof of the wave property is abundant. Electrical energy escapes into
free space in the form of waves. Countless observations prove it.
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard:

You sing to the choir, and waves need a media to propagate through/on
... plus, just as an extra kicker, they appear enough as particles to
have an arguable point--which brings us here.

Well, unless that thinking is wrong and there is no ether (medium.)
And, radio "waves" are nothing but flying packets of energy stings ...
scratches head

Warmest regards,
JS

Agreed. Evidence is that the particles are separated from its
companion radiator
into space and those that do not escape are drawn back to the
radiatior where it decay's.
There is no "abundance" of evidence to either side of the particle
wave debate,
only the evidence that has been chosen for the moment at least until
the printer of science books get back to work again.
Ofcourse some say if it is in a book then that is what is correct,
just like on the web!
Of course if one considers that a particle that is projected into
space creates a magnetic field
then the question is what came first, the particulate or the magnetic
field of constant polarity.
Art

On Aug 30, 9:32 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Denny wrote:
So Cecil , what should I call incoherent photons?

I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure you cannot
call them a single wave (function).

Speaking of which, I now feel the urge to put Beethoven's Fifth on the
turntable...

I prefer Glenlivet's fifth on my table.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ahhha, so that's where the incoherent photons come from!

art wrote:

...
only the evidence that has been chosen for the moment at least until
the printer of science books get back to work again.
Ofcourse some say if it is in a book then that is what is correct,
just like on the web!
...
Art

Art:

When we make this final leap, explain that one-more-thing which will
trigger that flood of understanding, that revelation, that epiphany--we
will only look back and marvel that it took us so long--that we were so
close, for so long ...

An example is the atomic bomb. We always knew that if you pile up a lot
of pure radioactive material--you get heat--we speculated with a great
belief that an explosion from this process was possible. But putting it
all together, getting the right isotope with the extra atomic particles
available and a system to SLAM! enough of the material together (~2.2Kg)
and an "exploding bottle" of force to surround it and keep it together
so it didn't just melt/vaporize/weak-poof but would burst out in a
healthy explosion, until then, we hadn't really discovered the atomic
bomb ...

We stand such a threshold now, this "silence of new discovery" only
leads before the "storm of revelation(s)", that very next step may take
us there ... or, so I hope.

Somewhere out there is the mind(s) which will accomplish it. We simply
need to continue the discussion and search--keep the candle in the window.

Simply put, we need an Einstein and a Manhattan Project.

Or, perhaps we only just need a bunch more high IQ "kooks" in their
basements with wires and reactances--thinking and building from their
imaginations.

Regards,
JS

WHAT DO I WIN?

denny / k8do

BTW, while this is done in the spirit of fun all answers are accurate
as best I can make them based on my understanding of physics


Good answers! - you win my respect.
I saw a program on Public TV a while back, and they were trying to tie Macro
and micro mechanics together with a String theory. There were several
dimensions, and according to that program, It appears gravity waves might be
the only common 'thread' between the several dimensions, and may hold the
key to communications from one dimension to another.

Now I want THAT transceiver! A gravity-wave transceiver.
CQ, CQ, CQ 8th Dimension Dahdidi dit diDahdah dididididah didahdahdit
dahdah didahdahdah
How can we modulate graviry waves Then demodulate them and make sense of
the result?

We need Radio shack for some answers. Yes sir, do you have a Gravity-Wave
Walkie-Talkie?

On 30 Aug, 15:31, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

...

only the evidence that has been chosen for the moment at least until
the printer of science books get back to work again.
Ofcourse some say if it is in a book then that is what is correct,
just like on the web!
...
Art

Art:

When we make this final leap, explain that one-more-thing which will
trigger that flood of understanding, that revelation, that epiphany--we
will only look back and marvel that it took us so long--that we were so
close, for so long ...

An example is the atomic bomb. We always knew that if you pile up a lot
of pure radioactive material--you get heat--we speculated with a great
belief that an explosion from this process was possible. But putting it
all together, getting the right isotope with the extra atomic particles
available and a system to SLAM! enough of the material together (~2.2Kg)
and an "exploding bottle" of force to surround it and keep it together
so it didn't just melt/vaporize/weak-poof but would burst out in a
healthy explosion, until then, we hadn't really discovered the atomic
bomb ...

We stand such a threshold now, this "silence of new discovery" only
leads before the "storm of revelation(s)", that very next step may take
us there ... or, so I hope.

Somewhere out there is the mind(s) which will accomplish it. We simply
need to continue the discussion and search--keep the candle in the window.

Simply put, we need an Einstein and a Manhattan Project.

Or, perhaps we only just need a bunch more high IQ "kooks" in their
basements with wires and reactances--thinking and building from their
imaginations.

Regards,
JS

Yup..And after that person dies and only after he dies will people
examine
what he found and depending on the favorable publicity of the time
will
they consider its validity. To acknowledge its validity while the man
is still alive
means acceptance that the man is the smartest of all a tribute that no
man
is willing to assign.
For instance, if I stated that I had a dipole for 160 meters that was
rotatable
only snarls and laughter would be heard since it is NOT something that
one WANTS to believe,
because, if it was really possible he himself would have made it.
Art

Hal Rosser wrote:

...
Now I want THAT transceiver! A gravity-wave transceiver.
...

If I remember correctly, Alexander Graham Bell was working on a device
to communicate with the dead, just before his end?

Regards,
JS

K7ITM wrote in
ups.com:

On Aug 29, 4:11 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...



Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing
antennas emitting photons?

And, I would answer:

Photon emissions from an antenna element(s) seems difficult, at
best, to visualize (no pun intended.)

Consider a 1/2 inch dia. single element antenna (monopole?) If the
thing is emitting photons, one would think the photons are being
emitted equally around the elements circumference.

Well, now flatten that 1/2 dia rod into a very thin
ribbon--however, the ribbon still has the same area of cross
section, and equal to the cross section of the round rod. If this
conductor is emitting photons, one would expect them, now, to be
off the two flat sides of the element and relative few off the
sides--indeed, one would now expect this element to be becoming
directional in two favored directions--off the flat sides ...
to date, I have NOT been able to measure an acceptable difference
to reinforce the "illumination properties" of the element.

The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and
proof hard to come by.

Regards,
JS

John

Imagine your ribbon antena flattened to the thickness of a razor
blade. Instead of using RF, heat the antenna with a blow torch until
it becomes white hot.

It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any
appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside
angles an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects
can be expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test
equipment would not have the resolution to measure the dip with the
antenna edge on. The width of the receiving antenna and diffraction
effects would tend to hide this in the far field, and alignment,
reflection effects and manufacturing tolerances in the near field.

Or perhaps more appropriately, with visible light being around 500
nanometers wavelength, imagine your antenna wire being about 0.01
nanometers thick and 1 nanometer wide (and 250 nanometers long, if you
wish) ... Now does you intuition tell you anything useful about the
angular distribution of emitted photons? I suppose not.

The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF
design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather
long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually
intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot
always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

On 30 Aug, 23:33, Dave Oldridge wrote:
snip


The real reason that photons are not a particularly useful concept in RF
design is that they are vanishingly small in energy, due to the rather
long wavelenths. I doubt if there is any equipment that would actually
intercept a MEASURABLE photon at most radio frequencies. You cannot
always say that of short-wavelength gamma rays or even light.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It seams that many here have aligned themselvezs with modern
relativistic
theories expoused by scientists and lately championed by Einstein.
Yet to do this pushes aside great scientists of the past such as
Newton,
Ohm and many others with phoney thinking. The next decade will push
aside
this ludicrous thinking and move back to Newtonian thinking where
"equilibrium"
was always at center stage. Gravitation is at the center of all
science and to
build on anything else is to place a foundation on sand. Particulates
DO have mass
which thus places it firmly into Newtons Laws of physics areana which
has never been disproved.
Regards
Art