[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
*There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and
photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are
working on. *particle physicists like photons because they can draw
them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them
getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally
prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over
macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations.

and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation
is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. *just because
no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static,
just that it is not an explicit function of time. *actually if you
study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of
them are explicit functions of time. *two of them do contain
derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an
independent variable.
One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium
alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was
the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or
energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives
us the picture of change without which there is nothing.


David
Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not
mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to
that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside
so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem.
I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for
explanations to how the wave actually works. From the above, I really
believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how
things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting
Regards
Art

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 7, 1:21*pm, You wrote:
In article
,



*Bill wrote:
On Jan 6, 7:29*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where
is made for displacement current to contain a static field.
I have an example of that on my page Unwin antennas where

Fromwww.unwinantennas.com
"The Sun is very hot because it is burning. Burning as we know it
produces soot and other by products in abundance that when these
particles collect in the air they become visual to the eye as smoke
even tho the particles themselves are invisible to the eye unless
there is a contrast in light as with particles passing thru a shaft of
light thru a window."

You are an idiot.

You Sir, are a Morooon (Bugs Bunny Definition) if you think the above
has ANY basis in FACT.... I don't know where you get that the "Sun is
burning" idea... Burning is Oxidation, and the sun is NOT oxidizing
ANYTHING.... The Sun runs on FUSION... Hydrogen into Helium and higher
Molecular Weight Atoms. this is NOT Oxidation...

Best you leave the Physics and Chemistry to folks that actually paid
attention is Jr. High School.....

Yes, you are correct, as is the comment regarding the number of basic
colours. The introduction was meant to provide an outline to the
subject without getting involved in Lepton and Neutrinos that in the
past took away from the subject at hand namely, particles arriving
from outside the Gaussian circle. When the above items were introduced
on this newsgroup a lot of bad names went flying about, but there was
one comment that stated, for this group it would be better to stick to
particles than to speculate on the subject prior to entrance to the
Earth's circle. Using the term Leptons and the number of different
flavours or colour such as the three colours that are used in tv was
really a mistake when considering the audience I was hoping for. More
than 7K has viewed it according to QRZ but nobody siezed upon this to
make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is more
knowledgable My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the
Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an
introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion
into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced,
and it goes on.

[tom]

Art Unwin wrote:
make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is more
knowledgable My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the
Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an
introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion
into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced,
and it goes on.

And showing more of his ignorance or lack of attention to detail, it
really doesn't matter which, he doesn't realize that fusion is not
nuclear decay.

Art should give it up, but he doesn't realize he's just flatass wrong
about almost everything he says, so he never will. Either that or he's
one of the nets most successful trolls. It matters little which.

tom
K0TAR

[Bill[_4_]]

On Jan 8, 2:19*am, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
make a complaint, but then one hopes that this group is *more
knowledgable *My sole intent of introducing the Sun was to link the
Suns rotation cycles to the hobby of ham radio as we see it as an
introduction and not to generate a science paper otherwise intrusion
into the subject of nuclear decay would also have to be introduced,
and it goes on.

And showing more of his ignorance or lack of attention to detail, it
really doesn't matter which, he doesn't realize that fusion is not
nuclear decay.

Art should give it up, but he doesn't realize he's just flatass wrong
about almost everything he says, so he never will. *Either that or he's
one of the nets most successful trolls. *It matters little which.

tom
K0TAR

Art would have us believe that objection to his abysmal ignorance is
in fact censorship. So his persistence makes him a martyr, you see.

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 7, 7:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote:

On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
*There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and
photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are
working on. *particle physicists like photons because they can draw
them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them
getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally
prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over
macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations.

and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation
is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. *just because
no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static,
just that it is not an explicit function of time. *actually if you
study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of
them are explicit functions of time. *two of them do contain
derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an
independent variable.

One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium
alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was
the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or
energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives
us the picture of change without which there is nothing.

no, time is omitted because it is irrelevant to an equation that
applies 'at each instant' in time. so at any instant you can add up
the charges inside the gaussian surface and know the total flux
through the surface. the only 'equilibrium' is the equals sign that
states that the total flux is equal to a function of the total
charge. you can indeed have energy flow across the gaussian surface
and the equals sign still applies at every instant in time.

David
Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not
mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to
that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside
so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem.

but what is the 'problem'. maxwell's equations as published for the
last hundred years or more seem to work just fine to the limits of our
measurement capabilities.


I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for
explanations to how *the wave actually works. From the above, I really
believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how
things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting
Regards
Art

No one knows how the wave 'actually' works, but we have maxwell's
equations to tell us how to accurately model and predict configuration
of fields and the propagation of waves. That is the one thing your
'theory' seems to be missing, in order for you to have a theory worth
discussing it must first be put down in equations that describe
something measurable so it can be verified versus reality... AND then
it must predict something different from all other existing laws and
theories. without those two conditions you are just a handwaving
carnival hawker trying to sell patent medicine to people who aren't
sick.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 9, 8:06*am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:50*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 7, 1:09*pm, Dave wrote:

On Jan 7, 4:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 7, 7:24*am, Dave wrote:

On Jan 7, 3:45*am, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jan 6, 8:13*pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:

The particle wave duality of electromagnetic waves was settled back in the
1930's and further refinements have only gone on to prove that
electromagnetic waves act as both particles and waves depending on
circumstances and measurement. There is nothing wrong in considering the
generation of an electromagnetic wave using particles, so long as the end
results are in agreement with measurements taken using standard scientific
equipment.

Also agreed with except for radio waves that if duality over the whole
spectrum is true it is not so with radio frequencies. Gauss makes it
quite clear that *static particles can become a dynamic field
according to Maxwells equations. If they become waves at the higher
end of the frequency span say beyond X rays it is of no concern to the
subject of radiation in the amateur bands which is the field that I am
working with.

there is no exception for radio waves, they act as photon particles
also, just like the ones at visible light frequencies and higher. this
too has been accepted for many years.

David, I won't fight you but I would like to take advantage of your
expertise. The question whether you may make a gaussian field dynamic
such that Maxwells equations can be used is the beginning of this saga
as the group will not accept it.
So I will move on to the Faraday cage.
*There is an animation of what exactly happens on the web with respect
to radio, you may want to look it up.
But for openers you would get my attention in explaning this phenomina
with the use of waves instead of the actions of mass or a particle.
This is a sincere request as it seems discussion of duallity means
talking past each other when there is a clear difference between the
action of waves and those of particles,namely attraction. versus
cancellation.
You supplying this may get the subject back to a level plane of
politeness where the postings will supply enlightment instead of
derision.
Thanks for reading
Art

duality applies to all frequencies of electromagnetic waves and
photons... it all depends on which is more useful for whatever you are
working on. *particle physicists like photons because they can draw
them in feynman diagrams nicely and they like to talk about them
getting absorbed and emitted by valence electrons, engineers generally
prefer waves and fields because they are easy to calculate over
macroscopic distances using maxwell's equations.

and i still say your extension of a time parameter in gauss's equation
is unnecessary since the equation applies at all times. *just because
no 't' shows in the equation doesn't mean it is necessarily static,
just that it is not an explicit function of time. *actually if you
study all 4 of maxwell's equations closely you will see that NONE of
them are explicit functions of time. *two of them do contain
derivitives with respect to time, but none of them contains 't' as an
independent variable.

One short point. Time is omitted because it is based on equilibrium
alone where nothing is happening and all is balanced The Big bang was
the instance that time began and equilibrium is broken by movement or
energy exchange. It is the energy exchange subject which alone gives
us the picture of change without which there is nothing.

no, time is omitted because it is irrelevant to an equation that
applies 'at each instant' in time. *so at any instant you can add up
the charges inside the gaussian surface and know the total flux
through the surface. *the only 'equilibrium' is the equals sign that
states that the total flux is equal to a function of the total
charge. *you can indeed have energy flow across the gaussian surface
and the equals sign still applies at every instant in time.

David
Well that is a good opening or introduction, tho I wish you had not
mentioned your thought of adding time to Maxwell as the response to
that was explosive years ago. I hope that others will put that aside
so we can concentrate on the main thrust of the problem.

but what is the 'problem'. *maxwell's equations as published for the
last hundred years or more seem to work just fine to the limits of our
measurement capabilities.

I will be very interested in what you will use as the subject for
explanations to how *the wave actually works. From the above, I really
believe you have the background or track record to explain all and how
things are working to the satisfaction of all. This could be exciting
Regards
Art

No one knows how the wave 'actually' works, but we have maxwell's
equations to tell us how to accurately model and predict configuratio
of fields and the propagation of waves. *That is the one thing your
'theory' seems to be missing, in order for you to have a theory worth
discussing it must first be put down in equations that describe
something measurable so it can be verified versus reality... AND then
it must predict something different from all other existing laws and
theories.

O.K David Let us look at the Faraday cage or better still a shield.
Faraday has shown that when one side is impinged upon by a ":wave"
that it will separate into two components of "waves or fields". They
will not stay as one but will separate into two separate energies or
charges
On one side of the conductor (electric field) and the other field
will follow (magnetic) on the other side of the conductor. The time
elapsed is equal to half a cycle or half a period of the frequency
applied.
During the next half cycle the charges as they are now on each side of
the conductor are drawn opposite to each other with the conductor
inbetween.
Thus this second half of the cycle of time is taken up by movement or
an accelleration of the charge inside the shield until it is exactly
opposite(and equal) to the outside charge. The intenal charge has to
move because it is out of phase with respect to the external charge
thus it is forced to accelerate or decellerate if you will to its new
position or resting place. While this internal charge is moving the
flux that it is carrying is transformed into a time varying current
such that the charge is now without energy and static and its energy
in the form of a time varying current has moved on outside of the so
called boundary in the same way it in initially entered our boundary.
Thus at this point we have located the where abouts of all energies
involved by adding all the "instances" of time ( dy/dx ) until the
instances added up to a period of time for the frequency applied.
At all times where the energies are at rest there is no accelleration
and the energies dissapate into another form or state.
As you can see David I have concentrated on energy asd opposed to its
form where we applied an energy at the transmitter where it was
reciprocated at the receiver. Mention of waves or particles have been
deliberatly avoided and we have accounted for all forces or energies
involved for a cycle.
Now we do not have to let it rest there.We have Maxwells equations for
radiation and with todays computors that same equation can be oriented
such that if you input a radiator it will change the input to the
metrics of Maxwells equations which is a wavelength to satisfy
equilibrium. Thus the program only accepts input metrics that are
included in Maxwells equations such that equilibrium is adhered to at
all times
When applying a radiator to such a computer program it will supply a
accountability of all forces that follows the intents of Maxwell.
Thus when the program has done its stuff it will supply a full
accountability in terms of 100 percent,
Thus I have supplied a sequence of "observables" that relate to the
experimental results of Faraday. I then applied the same situation to
the accepted Maxwell mathematical equations which also provided 100%
accountability.
Both of these approaches result as equals. To satisfy those who have
positions of duallity I have used energy terms alone without the
description of its carriers.
So David, I have provided all for your dissemination, where you can
break it up into scientific parts for comment including desired
additions required to fortify a position. It is rather long and
detailed but in no way can it be seen as "hand waving". At least you
seem to be alone in sticking to physics without being dominated by
emotions.
One can easily hang a piece of mesh and connect it both to the ground
and a radio and both charges will take a separate path since they are
divided by a conductor into two separate entities.
Best regards
Art





*without those two conditions you are just a handwaving
carnival hawker trying to sell patent medicine to people who aren't
sick.

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 9, 4:19*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 9, 5:27*pm, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 4:19*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

p.s. talking energy when trying to figure out what happens with waves
is counterproductive. energy is an integration of power, power is a
function of current or voltage and impedance, or field strength and
impedance of the medium... when you go from fields or current/voltage
to power you lose phase information that is important. integrating it
into energy loses even the phase and time information. it is always
best to describe waves by using one field or the other, which one is
up to the student since they are always related by the impedance of
the medium... the same goes for currents or voltages on conductors,
pick one and stick with it, you can always calculate the other when
needed.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 9, 11:33*am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 5:27*pm, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 4:19*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

p.s. talking energy when trying to figure out what happens with waves
is counterproductive. *energy is an integration of power, power is a
function of current or voltage and impedance, or field strength and
impedance of the medium... when you go from fields or current/voltage
to power you lose phase information that is important. *integrating it
into energy loses even the phase and time information. *it is always
best to describe waves by using one field or the other, which one is
up to the student since they are always related by the impedance of
the medium... the same goes for currents or voltages on conductors,
pick one and stick with it, you can always calculate the other when
needed.

You stated that nobody knows how waves work so I took energy
contained as the route. I can't explain how waves work either and I
don't want to start of with an explanation how a wave works.
So the impasse appears to me that first I have to explain how waves
work instead of mass but also to continue on with the same theory and
then apply it to another theory! It was stated earlier that a mouse
trap can kill a mouse with less than 100% energy, so you require an
autopsy to show how and why and if it is really dead! You can do the
same by connecting a radio up to a mesh. You find how it can transmit
and receive such that it is NOT dead, that is the easy way.
We are now back to the prosecutor declaring one is an idiot where the
judge retorts, as another example of free speech, that the prosequtor
is a homosexual, but now requests the prosequtor to present evidence
proof or you will be arrested!
I am not guilty as I have presented a paper for my peers to agree or
disagree on the basis of science. Unfortunately my peers in science
have not yet arrived. Either way, thanks a bunch for your efforts and
sticking to physics and not free speech.
Best Regards
Art

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 9, 11:27*am, Dave wrote:
On Jan 9, 4:19*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

snip handwaving

when you supply equations that predict something DIFFERENT than
Maxwell please let me know, otherwise i need no snake oil.

O.K look at things another way where the given theory interlocks with
even more branches of accepted science.

When you apply Maxwells equations to an array it can only supply
radiation from forces that are supplied. If all is not supplied ie the
array is not in equilibrium then it accounts for only what is
applicable.
A yagi is not in equilibrium so Maxwell can only supply radiation
evident by other laws or another arrangement that the programmer has
provided, which will be in the order of something less than 100%
If the result is 100% accountability translated into 100% efficiency
then the array provided conformed to a Maxwell arrangement in
equilibrium
OR the programmer provided methods for the program to reorganised the
array to conform with Maxwells equations which requires equilibrium.
Thus Maxwell declares the difference between equilibrium
and non equilibrium. The final test in terms of physics and astromoney
and the laws of Newton is that the vectors of radiation must be equal
to opposing vectors such that equilibrium is retained. Maxwell does
this by supplying two vectors for radiation which is balanced by
gravity and the rotation of the Earth which are accepted external
influencies
with reference to the Solar system. These same two vectors are
reflected thru a series of interchanges per Newtons law where it
inevitably it finishes up with the big bang where equilibrium is
broken by the introduction of the same two vectors, one straight and
one with spin content which is axial or otherwise ala, helical in
content.
It is the same two vectors which all the Universe is compared to as a
datum level that portrays the difference between equilibrium and the
breakage of equilibrium. This can be stated because without breakage
or change from equilibrium movement cannot occur and the solar system
cannot exist. This was visualised by Einstein with out the success of
deducing the initial vectors such that he turned to the science of
Relativity in the hope they would then be exposed before he went to
his death.
Regards
Art