Laws of science are predicated of our presence in the Universe such as
a single bubble in a bubble bath where pressure contained in a bubble
is different to that of other bubbles. Thus pressure in a single
bubble is analogous to a small part which constitutes the law of
partial pressure.Thus when we on Earth view a half wave as resonant we
have moved away from the concept of the Universe upon which boundary
laws are founded.The concept of a half wave being resonant
is really an approximation of equality in volved in the boundary
aproach similar to the conversion of a three dimensional picture to
that of a two dimension. We see this in a pendulum clock where
friction is used as an equivalent of that which is lost in the change
which is also relative to momentum. We can look at a pendulum clock
and see that this results of showing the effects of equality where
momentum has been manipulated. If a half wave was truly a resonant
point which signifies the completion of one repeatable action we would
expect that the pendulum only swings from top to bottom and back again
by discarding momentum. If the bob of a pendulum is made of a long
length with allowance for movement in three dimensional form we have a
paradox where because of three dimensional movement the pendulum
changes to a circular movement which does not has a repartation of
sequences which signifies accountability because of the Corriolis
effect which is a phenomina of Earth and not the Cosmos. i.e. similar
to the analogy
of partial pressures. Thus, when following the laws of Newton which
follows the nature of the Cosmos, we must take into account the laws
of relativity which is a recognition of change depending on what part
of the Universe that you are viewing things from. This is a
diffinitive metric and not an average metric as viewed by Newton.
Since we are following the laws of the Cosmos(Newton) the metric of
balance must also be that of the Cosmos where true resonance becomes
equal to a period where all forces are accounted for and not that of
half a period.
David, science is a part of nature as is electrical and mechanical and
chemical understanding and not a compentalization of unconnected
sciences. It is for this reason that shows the lack of understanding
of Newtons laws which has mislead the World into using a half period
as a resonant point in communication.
Best regards
Art Unwin

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Laws of science are predicated of our presence in the Universe such as
a single bubble in a bubble bath where pressure contained in a bubble
is different to that of other bubbles.

keep blowing bubbles art, maybe you will be better at that than trying to
describe fields and waves.

rest of arts babbling snipped

On Apr 18, 11:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Laws of science are predicated of our presence in the Universe such as
a single bubble in a bubble bath where pressure contained in a bubble
is different to that of other bubbles.

keep blowing bubbles art, maybe you will be better at that than trying to
describe fields and waves.

rest of arts babbling snipped

David
Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics
Newton viewed the Cosmos from the outside in, and Einstein
viewed the Cosmos from the inside out. Einstein took this approach
to science because of his inability to locate the "weak force". But
the object of his examination was the same as Newtons, the Cosmos as a
whole. Gauss's approach to statics is the same as Newton, Maxwell and
others. He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.
Use of the three dimensions was to check the work of other
scientists that he used in his equations where some of the equations
were two dimensional and required the
other dimension addition of time for equilibrium per Newton's
requirements.
Since you have placed "electricity" in a separate compartment from
that of science you can never fully understand the laws of science so
I will leave the subject in a static position with respect to this
group. I will however leave you with some thoughts to ponder.
Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.
In other words a sine curve is a graphic(scope) that shows the metric
of the Universe, after all the measuring instrument uses particles
from beyond Earth for its means of measurement ! For this reason it is
able to measure the equivalent on Earth which is termed "vibration"
because each "period" is not repeatable i.e. lack of accountability
of all forces viz a vi displacement current which represents the weak
force.
Best regards
Art

Best regards
Art Unwin....xg (uk)

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics

only in your mind.

He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.

best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d
because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never
was and never will be. unlike your thinking art.

Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.

the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control
the universe. nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we
would all be cold dark cinders.

On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics

only in your mind.

He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.

best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d
because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never
was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art.

Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.

the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control
the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we
would all be cold dark cinders.

Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of
the Cosmos as a whole
You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space
beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a
deeper understanding.
We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or
boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David.
Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with
my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! I built it
and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated.
Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry
about that, can be attributed to a different theory. I will continue
to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna
computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on
the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces,
because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable
antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on
QRZ antenna construction which now has over 4k hits without similar
comments such as yours.
Regards and best 73s
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 1:41 pm, "Dave" wrote:
In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on
QRZ antenna construction which now has over 4k hits without similar
comments such as yours.

thats obviously because its not an open forum, only people who think like
you go there, so you have a captive audience.

Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is
only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You
ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good
knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so
at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to
account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse
when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to
our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but
you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you
believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who
is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the
universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their
definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only
mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and
although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or
physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them
in terms of their physical experience.


On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:





"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics

only in your mind.

He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.

best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d
because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane... never
was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art.

Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.

the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control
the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we
would all be cold dark cinders.

Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of
the Cosmos as a whole
You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space
beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a
deeper understanding.
We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or
boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David.
Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with
my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it
and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated.
Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry
about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue
to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna
computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on
the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces,
because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable
antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on
QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar
comments such as yours.
Regards and best 73s
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 30, 7:39*pm, wrote:
Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is
only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You
ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good
knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so
at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to
account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse
when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to
our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but
you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you
believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who
is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the
universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their
definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only
mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and
although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or
physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them
in terms of their physical experience.

On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics

only in your mind.

He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.

best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d
because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane.... never
was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art.

Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.

the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control
the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we
would all be cold dark cinders.

Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of
the Cosmos as a whole
You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space
beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a
deeper understanding.
We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or
boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David.
Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with
my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it
and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated.
Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry
about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue
to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna
computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on
the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces,
because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable
antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on
QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar
comments such as yours.
Regards and best 73s
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A lot of words. As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the
Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically
connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. So
as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the
window! Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are
proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. Sooooo, be
my guest. I will do my best in following the trail that you have in
mind that you feel is better than mine. My guess is that you have
nothing in mind and are standing on sand like Andy Capp.

On Apr 30, 10:31*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:39*pm, wrote:





Your whole wave concept of the universe (sinusoidal vibrations) is
only part of the picture that is very very old and outdated. You
ignore another component, quantum mechanics, which requires a good
knowledge of mathematics to conceptualize well where possible to do so
at all. Even then, conceptualization falls apart when you try to
account for other phenomena such as exotic energy and matter and worse
when you go into specific theories that involve added dimensions to
our 4-D concept of the universe. You have been trying for years but
you will get nowhere looking for your holy grail as long as you
believe you have the answers because, alas, you are the only ham who
is thinking outside of the box. Humans cannot conceptualize the
universe in terms of a soap bubble and most cannot even express their
definition of a soap bubble in more than 3 dimensions. Only
mathematics can be used to express what you are attempting and
although the math may be understood, even the mathemetician or
physicist who derives his concepts usually cannot conceptualize them
in terms of their physical experience.

On Apr 18, 3:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Apr 18, 1:41*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Physics is physics, otherwise known as Classical physics

only in your mind.

He used the boundary method except using only two dimensions
and not three which requires the dimension of time.

best re-read it again, and again... Gauss' law is in 3d, it has to be in 3d
because the electric field from a charge is not confined to a plane.... never
was and never will be. *unlike your thinking art.

Vibration is resonance in terms of our Earth since it does not account
for all forces involved in the Universe which requires balance or
equilibrium.

the 'universe' makes no requirements, it is the laws of physics that control
the universe. *nothing in the universe is anywhere near in equilibrium or we
would all be cold dark cinders.

Only because we , humans,do not know the extent of the boundaries of
the Cosmos as a whole
You cannot deal with true equilibrium while neglecting the outer space
beyond our Universe. Study the law of partial pressures to get a
deeper understanding.
We can only deal in the Universe we know which is only one bubble or
boundary of many that constitutes the Cosmos. But let it drop David.
Yes, I have an antenna that I lifted into the rotator on my tower with
my bare hands for top band and other bands including AM! *I built it
and many others on the theories and principles that I have enunciated..
Maybe my theory is incorrect and the antenna, which is a fact,sorry
about that, can be *attributed to a different theory. *I will continue
to look for a alternative that also is agreed upon by present antenna
computer programs which I assume to be correct as they are based on
the presence of equilibrium] with accountability for all forces,
because they duplicate the results and configuration of my rotatable
antenna. In the mean time study the thread regarding helix antennas on
QRZ *antenna construction *which now has over 4k hits without *similar
comments such as yours.
Regards and best 73s
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A lot of words. *As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the
Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically
connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine. So
as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the
window! *Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are
proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all. Sooooo, be
my guest. I will do my best in following the trail that you have in
mind that you feel is better than mine. My guess is that you have
nothing in mind and are standing on sand like Andy Capp.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art,the only diasagreement about Gauss and Maxwell was that YOU
discovered anything NEW. Most people interested in antennas or current
flow are aware of the Gauss/ Maxwell connection. Jeez its High School
Physics.

Jimmie

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
A lot of words. As far as mathematics is concerned I started with the
Mathematics of Gauss and Maxwell and found they were mathematically
connected. Nobody on this group agreed with that posture of mine.

On the contrary, it was pointed out many times that Gauss's Law is one of
the basic Maxwell Equations, so they are definately bound to each other.

So as far as mathematics goes with this group is straight out of the
window!

So as far as your understanding of the Maxwell Equations, you are straight
out the window.

Cecil tried that aproach and failed also. Now you are
proposing that mathematics is the trail that reveals all.

unfortunately art has strayed so far off the trail that he'll need a
spiritual guide to help him back to the light of day.