[Art Unwin]

On the subject of particle wave duality with respect to radiation, I
pointed out to several physics forums that
the gaussian law on statics is the same as that of a Faraday shield
and when applied with a time varying field amounted to radiation per
Maxwells laws. Both of these instances suggests particles with spin,
probably helical.
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.
This, of course, has happened to me. Reading further I see that
physicists are plagued with "crackpots" mainly "engineers" who come up
with theories that challenge fully accepted theories made by
physicists with many years of math study that cannot be equaled by
others!
Since the particle has spin of helical form it makes me wonder if the
helical action is what is referred to as a wave, but no answer is
available which is also followed up by banning. ( lack of mathematical
reasoning)
We do not have moderators on this newsgroup, but just imagine how a
few can determine the incorrectness of radiation or challenges to
accepted science could stifle
the whole idea of experimentation in our hobby and hold of progression
within the hobby!
Forums are not perfect by any means but the idea of moderators that
can ban or censor free thought where only questions accepted are those
that can be answered parrot fashion from the books just throws me for
a loop. I know that censorship exists in many countries which are
controlled by a few or a committee
I sure hope that anything like physics censorship is not bestowed on
this newsgroup. by moderators with brains of a higher calibre than
those that post.
Looking at how progress is defined by the Nobel prize
I see that nominies can only be accepted by those "known" in the
field. In other words, the poll of insiders
make the choice. The nominees are then adjudicated by a committee of a
dozen or so ( connected to the funds side) who then decide the winner.
The bottom line is that the winner is determined by a group that wish
to continue being thought as an insider or equivalent scientist by
coat tailing a winner.
Obviously we are still accepting that "all is known" in the sciences.
But then, why do students have to buy those new expensive books each
year if change has not come about?

[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:

Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss. Looking thru the web I
find that this is normal practice, tho they "may" know the answer they
prefer to take the tack as some do on this group "because I said so".
I can understand it from this group but from those who practice
physics I do not. Maybe this rejection of outsiders is why things are
in such a mess where they now even call other physicists "crackpots"
when they stray from the accepted line. Like this group, they demand
all, such as experimental results and mathematics but decline to do
the same in rebuttal believing they are above it. I imagine that this
must be the very case in present day colleges in the US and else ware!
I suppose we can call it just being human and turf protection.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Art Unwin wrote in news:f919e118-400b-4b47-a710-
:

I suppose we can call it just being human and turf protection.


Or look to a simple physical aspect and call it inertia. Whatever it is, if
you agonise over it you won't do much about it. I sympathise over this, I
dislike the way patent and establishment turns technocracy into preisthood,
but it still boils down to what you acheive. We might live in a world where
current doctrine tells us that all is ruled by chance and that science cannot
look into all things as some things must be permantly uncertain. That's
fragmented not just science, but the whole of society because if no-one can
validly seek a single truth many will just go seeking their own, hence a
proliferantion of New Agey stuff, etc. But one thing doesn't change: Either a
thing works or it doesn't. And never mind the maths, if it tries to predict
too much, don't trust it. If it's descriptive of observations it might lead
to new predictions, otherwise it might as well be an abstract model that
can't predict anything. I don't know anything about what grounding you have,
but it doesn't matter because this applies to all thought. If you have really
found some new path, why try to force convergence with an old one? I'm
staying with the old one because what it describes matches what I know, and I
value its anchorage. Seems to me you either need to demonstrate an easy
convergence of a very different theory so that anyone can reality-check it
and still find it true, or build things based on it that verify predictions
so others can see that happen.

I said this because it felt more right than not saying it, but I'm getting
too old to go round in circles so if I find myself been drawn into any I
won't go there. I wanted to stay silent on this, but however strange your
ideas seem to me, there is something I can sympathise with about the trouble
they cause for you. Sometimes if the roads don't join, you just have to keep
driving on the one you're on.

[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?
A Gaussian boundary enclosing static particles can be made dynamic.
Same goes for a Faraday cage, both of which utelizes a time varying
field for radiation. At the same time Maxwells equations show that for
a given volume it must contain radiators that are of a wavelength
where the whole array is also resonant for 100% efficiency in
radiation.
As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers but it is
clear that in the instance of radiation the rate of change of a charge
is that of a particle. Where the determinations of Gauss and Faraday
match the equations of Maxwell ignoring the double slit experiment
which refers to high frequencies where change of state could occur.
Now you and others refer to such findings as nonsence or ramblings
but without supplying basis of same because you do not have the
knoweledge to explain your position, which is normal for the un
educated. You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician but it
is really the same experience over and over again thru the years where
you have learned to quote the required mantra for a particular niche
with little knowledge outside that niche, so your responses are in
line with your personal oft repeated experiences. For me, Gaussian
mention of static particles and the animated samples of the Faraday
cage on the web that also portray particles, both of which one can
apply the mathematics of Maxwell, is sufficient for me to represent
truth for radiation , despite others who say it is nonsense because,
well because they said so. Provide a reasonable rebuttal and you have
my attention, otherwise, concentrate on keeping the beakers clean as
well as the benches.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Art Unwin wrote in news:9e8de79b-123c-47fc-9187-
:

Provide a reasonable rebuttal and you have
my attention, otherwise, concentrate on keeping the beakers clean as
well as the benches.


Ok, you just lost my sympathy with that cheap shot, I don't care that it's
not aimed at me. You obviously didn't care about it before when I said I
sympathised. You're an idiot, and I'm putting you on the killfile so I don't
have to see what you say again. If you really want to win any kind of respect
you're on a hiding to nothing the way you're going. You sound like you want
to be as arrogant as those you affect to despise appear to you to be. At
which point it stops being about science at all.

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 11:22*am, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Art Unwin wrote in news:9e8de79b-123c-47fc-9187-
:

Provide a reasonable rebuttal and you have
my attention, otherwise, concentrate on keeping the beakers clean as
well as the benches.

Ok, you just lost my sympathy with that cheap shot, I don't care that it's
not aimed at me. You obviously didn't care about it before when I said I
sympathised. You're an idiot, and I'm putting you on the killfile so I don't
have to see what you say again. If you really want to win any kind of respect
you're on a hiding to nothing the way you're going. You sound like you want
to be as arrogant as those you affect to despise appear to you to be. At
which point it stops being about science at all.

Suit yourself. It was he who used the words "nonsense, ramblings"
etc so I threw them back and will always do that. Now you bestow the
word "idiot" what should I say in return? For years he has slandered
me, just look at his record in the archives. Like many others who are
now getting old they seem to magnify their accomplishments and the
promotions they should have got for their endevours in life that some,
on the West Coast that is, suggest that they can see Russia from their
homes just to impress. So now you have become a judge with outstanding
qualities, O my! Don't often see people like you in East London as far
as I can remember, at least not for long.
As for science, all on this group say it is illegal to add a time
varying field to a static field to make it dynamic ,which equates to
Maxwells equations. If you don't agree with them then they have the
license to slam you. Good grief That is their standard on science that
they align with.

[[email protected]]

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04Â*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).

snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.

snip rambling

If you want to know why your rambling nonsense is rambling nonsense, read
an elementry electromagnetic text such as "Electromagnetics" by Kraus
and Carver.

Yeah, I know, hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the subject
for over a hundred years are all wrong while you have the "Truth" in
magic bouncing particles.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Art Unwin]

On Jan 6, 12:22*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:30*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 6, 12:04*am, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Now physics forums have moderators with the power to ban questions
that challenge existing laws (waves) where as the questions and the
poster can be censored and banned.

Umm, no.

The moderated groups just don't want to be bothered by drooling crackpots
and raving mental patients.

If someone attempts to post something that has data and math to back up
a new idea, it will get posted.

If someone attempts to post a bunch of rambling nonsense, it won't.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

It depends on what they consider "nonsense". In my case they quoted
QED as being final, so I then tried to see what definition they had on
"waves" to see what the property they saw symbolized waves such as
helical waves, but they declined to discuss.

Or in other words you attempted to post a bunch of ramblings about
"helical waves" without any results or math and expected them to spoon
feed you the contents of generally available texts such as "QED: The
Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard Feynman.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

How can you apply mathematics to an observation that matches
observations and conclusions to Faraday, Gauss, Maxwell and others?

With Maxwell's equations, which are a set of four partial differential
equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources,
charge density and current density.

With Gauss's flux theorem, which is a law relating the distribution of
electric charge to the resulting electric field.

With Faraday's law of induction which relates the induced electromotive
force in a closed circuit to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux
through the circuit.

Reading the above means nothing, you have to understand it
However, you can't with arm waving rambling.

snip rambling

As a lab technition I don't expect you to know the answers

I have never in my life been a lab technition (sic).
Keep trying you should be able to master it



snip rambling

You, yourself, have a long experience as a technician

You have no clue what experience I have.
O yes I do, I read your postings in the archives to understand what
level you are.

snip rambling

If you want to know why your rambling nonsense is rambling nonsense, read
an elementry electromagnetic text such as "Electromagnetics" by Kraus
and Carver.
You mention Kraus who spent a lot of time messing with radiators that
were not in equilibrium. He was bound to the idea of waves that
cancel, where if he had considered particles his helix radiators would
be in the form of a closed circuit such as a ribbon line where
particle vectors are additive. His work on helix antennas are so
incomplete
since he does not account for all forces involved for radiation.
Faraday shield is an excellent example of this where provision is made
for displacement current to contain a static field. I have an example
of that on my page Unwin antennas where I specifically state the
rudiments of current flow. As yet nobody has supplied scientific data
to show that flow is otherwise. Thru out the ages it has been
understood that the datum line for the laws of physics is the state of
equilibrium such that all forces are accounted for. For radio this
requires the use of radiators of a full wavelength which supplies
equilibrium and resoinance. Yet for some reason many including Kraus
has rejected this undeniable fact, Thus when applying Maxwells
equations they can never attain 100 percent efficiency. This can ONLY
be attained when an array is resonant and in equilibrium as must be
the individual radiators that consist same. On top of that, there is
no reason that a radiator should be straight only that it is in a
state of equilibrium. Think about it in terms of boundary laws that
abide with the laws of Newton in every aspect. Model a ribbon helix
in equilibrium or a simple helix antenna of Krauss and compare which
is the best for yourself instead of being just a follower. Look up
Faraday shields on the web and determine how electric fields and
magnetic fields are cancelled thus leaving just a time vary current
that your receiver can use. Think about how you can accellerate a
charge when it is just a field without mass and acts as a wave Use
your brain if you have one.
Your quotation of Maxwells laws does not impress me one bit as you
obviously do not know how to use it because of the lack of
understanding.




Yeah, I know, hundreds of thousands of people who have studied the subject
for over a hundred years are all wrong while you have the "Truth" in
magic bouncing particles.

No, not all, a Iot is very much disputed outside this group

No, it is not my truths! It is those of the masters which are now
largely ignored by computer operators and the present day crop of
physicists
who now rely on probability mathematics as the proof of the truth.
And why do you think that Feyman described duality as a"strange
theory" which is based solely on the incorrect analysis of an
experiment that does not jive with those of the Masters?
Frankly, you are not much of a judge with respect to physics.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---