On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:52:30 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Another solution to GUT from a supposed "Nobel Prize nominee": Gij, j=0 See

Uniting Waves: Intro to Grand Unified Theorem GAGUT

Hi Dan,

I see you can field questions on gravity where Arthur faltered.
Perhaps you can respond to:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with
respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to
prove your point.

Hi Arthur,

Newton's law:
F = M · A
these FMA terms a
F is force in Newton;
M is mass in kilogram;
A is acceleration in meter / second / second.

We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna
accelerated by earth's gravity field:
F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second
or (reduced):
98 kilogram · meter / second / second

When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that
Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much.

When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that
Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell
us how much.

There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much
does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can
answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided
above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as
specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10
meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to
11 kilogram
or
9 kilogram?
Or will gravity change to
9 · meter / second / second
or
8 · meter / second / second?

Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you
tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math,
your profession, and your chance to prove your point.

It seemed to be a very simple question at the time. There are only
two variables and if Arthur is right about Newton, then one of them
must change when we add power. In fact, if Arthur is right about
gravity, it can be the only variable that changes - the question then
becomes: How much? Given gravity is one of the weakest forces in the
Universe, then adding 100W to it should peg the meter. One has to
wonder how that went unnoticed in 120 years of transmission -
especially with some of those Megawatt LW stations.

If you can't help him, then you can join us in a very long line that
Arthur has just stepped into, deep at the back somewhere outside the
fire door, down the alley, around the block a couple times, and
disappearing into a side street in Keokuk, Iowa (you two might run
into Mitt Romney there).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

art wrote:

...
gravity and magnetic fields exists. By doing this the universal theory
is again given a morsel of reality with respect to existing laws.
Everybody have a merry Xmas. And try not to be overbearing to those
gathered around you
Art

I find it interesting so many "speak" of gravity as a "pulling force"
when, in all actuality, it is a "pushing force" ...

The earth is like a "bubble" in a "liquid ether", just like a bubble of
air in water, the water is a force applying pressure to the bubble--but
then, it is all how you look at it ...

Regards,
JS

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:52:30 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Another solution to GUT from a supposed "Nobel Prize nominee": Gij, j=0
See

Uniting Waves: Intro to Grand Unified Theorem GAGUT

Hi Dan,

I see you can field questions on gravity where Arthur faltered.
Perhaps you can respond to:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with
respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to
prove your point.

Hi Arthur,

Newton's law:
F = M · A
these FMA terms a
F is force in Newton;
M is mass in kilogram;
A is acceleration in meter / second / second.

We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna
accelerated by earth's gravity field:
F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second
or (reduced):
98 kilogram · meter / second / second

When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that
Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much.

When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that
Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell
us how much.

There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much
does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can
answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided
above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as
specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10
meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to
11 kilogram
or
9 kilogram?
Or will gravity change to
9 · meter / second / second
or
8 · meter / second / second?

Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you
tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math,
your profession, and your chance to prove your point.

It seemed to be a very simple question at the time. There are only
two variables and if Arthur is right about Newton, then one of them
must change when we add power. In fact, if Arthur is right about
gravity, it can be the only variable that changes - the question then
becomes: How much? Given gravity is one of the weakest forces in the
Universe, then adding 100W to it should peg the meter. One has to
wonder how that went unnoticed in 120 years of transmission -
especially with some of those Megawatt LW stations.

If you can't help him, then you can join us in a very long line that
Arthur has just stepped into, deep at the back somewhere outside the
fire door, down the alley, around the block a couple times, and
disappearing into a side street in Keokuk, Iowa (you two might run
into Mitt Romney there).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard

While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four
major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges
than the other three. Certain physical theorists have hypothesised that this
might be because we only see one aspect of gravity in our three/four (take
your pick) dimensional universe. At any substantial physical distance from a
point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is generally the largest
force observed.

Gravity interacts relatively weakly with matter and even less with the other
three forces, so I would expect that any effect would be at the limits of
measurement, even with high transmitter powers. Certain 'fringe
experimental' groups claim to have found evidence of a reduction in
gravitational attraction in the presence of rotating, high powered
electromagnetic fields. This would appear to form the basis of proposed
'practical' flying saucer designs by such groups.

Some conventional scientifically monitored experiments have shown apparent
slight reductions in gravitational attraction, but whether the effect is
real, or the measuring instruments were affected in some way by the presence
of extreme electromagnetic fields is a moot point. Most of the proposed
designs seem to require rather elaborate and expensive, large structures to
be built to create the required fields. I think we can all see where this
might be leading...

When the additional 'hidden' dimensions demanded by string theory are
factored in, it is entirely possible (even probable) for such effects to
occur but not necessarily on a humanly observable scale. Gravity may seem to
be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme.

Mike G0ULI

Mike Kaliski wrote:
... Gravity may
seem to be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it
rules supreme.

Mike G0ULI

You mean, like, has constructed everything we can see, even to the
greatest distances observed by our most powerful telescopes?

And, even ourselves?

Really? :-)

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
... Gravity may
seem to be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it
rules supreme.

Mike G0ULI

You mean, like, has constructed everything we can see, even to the
greatest distances observed by our most powerful telescopes?

And, even ourselves?

Really? :-)

Regards,
JS

Could be, but I prefer to believe I am just naturally attractive. ;-)

Merry Xmas

Mike G0ULI

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:13:42 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four
major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges
than the other three.

Hi Mike,

Without pursuing the other three (you may resolve this in response),
the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between those bodies being acted upon. This is the same
relation to radiated power (in this case 100W) and the same two bodies
(if we are doing substitutions) if they are located in the far field.

In the near field, the force of radiation varies to the third power,
and in the very close field this power is substantial: if that remote
body is resonant, and in that near field, then it can absorb at least
half of that power or more.

Unfortunately, those who want to hoist Newton's corpse on their
shoulders for a parade celebrating their powers of insight; they
cannot offer that gravity is tweaked even by a thousandth part - and a
thousandth part is easily measured.

... At any substantial physical distance from a
point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is generally the largest
force observed.

This is, no doubt, a reference to nuclear forces where electric and
magnetic dominate in geometries larger than a bacteria. Perhaps
Arthur's levitating particles that dance to RF and leap off the
antenna are fried virii. Unfortunately, for Arthur's levitating
particles, the RF would have to be tuned to several thousand THz.
(Art, a sunlamp would do the same thing cheaper.)

...Gravity may seem to
be the weakest force here on earth

I dare say that any subjective test of that would invert the "sense"
of your statement.

, but at cosmic scales it rules supreme.

The human response aside, at cosmic scales you have cosmic mass in
relation to less than cosmic scale. That is, comparing two galaxies'
gravities is necessarily heavily leveraged with billions of suns, and
yet the distance between the two centers (of galaxies) is probably on
the order of 100's to 1000's of either galaxy's radius. Newton would
shrug that off as being unremarkable - still only square law stuff.
Newton would probably have expressed the force within 20% on the first
pass. Push those two galactic systems to the edges of the cosmos will
only reduce that force by the square law (it certainly won't increase
it).

However, none of this answers how gravity can be an all band antenna's
friend as much as Arthur would like to have them wed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
Could be, but I prefer to believe I am just naturally attractive. ;-)

Merry Xmas

Mike G0ULI

Love the logic ... but, the pun? OUCH! ;-)

Merry Christmas Mike,
JS

On 22 Dec, 19:48, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:13:42 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"

wrote:
While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four
major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges
than the other three.

Hi Mike,

Without pursuing the other three (you may resolve this in response),
the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the
distance between those bodies being acted upon. *This is the same
snip.

*Unfortunately, for Arthur's levitating
particles, the RF would have to be tuned to several thousand THz.

Can you substantiate the above statement?
My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field
to levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference
from what you are saying
Art



However, none of this answers how gravity can be an all band antenna's
friend as much as Arthur would like to have them wed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

My understanding is that it only takes a moderate magnetic field
to levitate a free electron, which is a world of difference
from what you are saying

Hi Arthur,

The difference is I have experience in the matter, you don't. All you
have to go on are books.

Let's just take one very simple example about magnetic fields and
electrons: The Magnetron!

Do you know what's in a Magnetron? I doubt it. You will have to look
it up in one of your books, whereas I've held on in my hands while
servicing a transmitter.

So, already knowing you haven't got a clue about what is in a
Magnetron, then I will tell you. Cathode, Anode, and Magnet - nothing
else to get in the way.

So, there you have your magnet, and it is whopping big one too with a
whopping bloody field that goes waaaaaaaay beyond what you call
moderate (moderate is about 12 orders of magnitude toooooo small in
comparison!).

Does this magnet rip electrons right out of the metal? It would rip
apart the metal first before that happened. And yet electrons fly
from Cathode to Anode ONLY when the Cathode is HEATED! What is more,
the magnet is utterly unnecessary for those electrons to flow.

Ever wonder why Cathodes (or filaments) are heated? Well, in this
case (as in all other cases) because the Magnet doesn't have the oomph
to pull the electrons off the cold, cold Cathode. If a magnet can't
do it, electrons are certainly not going to jump off an antenna - not
unless there is sufficient potential to cause corona. Even then they
don't go very far - not even a foot. Corona doesn't measurably add to
DX unless you are at sea signaling by semaphore.

Now, can you tell us what a "work function" is? If you could, then
this nonsense about levitating electrons would collapse.

I will give you a week to do your research. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:52:30 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Another solution to GUT from a supposed "Nobel Prize nominee": Gij, j=0
See

Uniting Waves: Intro to Grand Unified Theorem GAGUT

Hi Dan,

I see you can field questions on gravity where Arthur faltered.
Perhaps you can respond to:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

For those that feel that mechanical laws of Newton cannot be used with
respech to electrical subjects( ala Roy) here is a chance for you to
prove your point.

Hi Arthur,

Newton's law:
F = M · A
these FMA terms a
F is force in Newton;
M is mass in kilogram;
A is acceleration in meter / second / second.

We can compute the force on a 10 meter long, 10 kilogram antenna
accelerated by earth's gravity field:
F = 10 kilogram · 9.8 · meter / second / second
or (reduced):
98 kilogram · meter / second / second

When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that
Mass doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell us how much.

When we add 100 Watts of power (for however long), it is clear that
Acceleration due to gravity doesn't change. Or perhaps you can tell
us how much.

There are only two variables to find Force in Newton's laws. How much
does 100 Watts change Mass or Gravity? I really don't expect you can
answer that because it is too simple: one or both numbers provided
above will be different, that is all. Can you give us something as
specific as I have? In other words, for 100 Watts applied to a 10
meter long, 10 kilogram antenna, will its Mass change to
11 kilogram
or
9 kilogram?
Or will gravity change to
9 · meter / second / second
or
8 · meter / second / second?

Only one or two very specific numbers have to shift here. Can you
tell us which or how much? This is, after all, your topic, your math,
your profession, and your chance to prove your point.

It seemed to be a very simple question at the time. There are only
two variables and if Arthur is right about Newton, then one of them
must change when we add power. In fact, if Arthur is right about
gravity, it can be the only variable that changes - the question then
becomes: How much? Given gravity is one of the weakest forces in the
Universe, then adding 100W to it should peg the meter. One has to
wonder how that went unnoticed in 120 years of transmission -
especially with some of those Megawatt LW stations.

If you can't help him, then you can join us in a very long line that
Arthur has just stepped into, deep at the back somewhere outside the
fire door, down the alley, around the block a couple times, and
disappearing into a side street in Keokuk, Iowa (you two might run
into Mitt Romney there).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard

While gravity is often quoted as exhibiting the weakest force of the four
major forces, that force appears to exhibit effects at far longer ranges
than the other three. Certain physical theorists have hypothesised that
this might be because we only see one aspect of gravity in our three/four
(take your pick) dimensional universe. At any substantial physical
distance from a point, gravitational force exerted per unit area is
generally the largest force observed.

Gravity interacts relatively weakly with matter and even less with the
other three forces, so I would expect that any effect would be at the
limits of measurement, even with high transmitter powers. Certain 'fringe
experimental' groups claim to have found evidence of a reduction in
gravitational attraction in the presence of rotating, high powered
electromagnetic fields. This would appear to form the basis of proposed
'practical' flying saucer designs by such groups.

Some conventional scientifically monitored experiments have shown apparent
slight reductions in gravitational attraction, but whether the effect is
real, or the measuring instruments were affected in some way by the
presence of extreme electromagnetic fields is a moot point. Most of the
proposed designs seem to require rather elaborate and expensive, large
structures to be built to create the required fields. I think we can all
see where this might be leading...

When the additional 'hidden' dimensions demanded by string theory are
factored in, it is entirely possible (even probable) for such effects to
occur but not necessarily on a humanly observable scale. Gravity may seem
to be the weakest force here on earth, but at cosmic scales it rules
supreme.

Mike G0ULI

this is because there is LOTS of matter in the universe. while each little
piece of matter creates a weak field when you add them all up it creates a
large field. As a sidelight, there is (at least as far as we know so far)
no, 'negative' pole of gravity... that is, every piece of matter equally
attracts every other piece. with electric fields or magnetic fields, there
are opposite polarities that tend to mask each other (superposition
anyone???). so while you could get higher forces with less electric charge,
separating them takes more work and the farther away you get the separated
charges tend to hide each other so the field falls off faster. it is also
hard to clump lots of the same charge together in one place to create a
large force since like charges repel each other.