On May 28, 7:17*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On May 28, 8:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Now just hold on right there!
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun as described by a particle.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, you are missing a basic point about physics.
Classical physics is seen as factual. All other theorems are
replacement attempts to explain paradoxies provided by classical
physics. When ever one reads the duality theorem it is exactly that, a
theorem which many say is a myth that is being perpetuated, but even
so they declare the wave as a function purely because of mathematical
reasons that the wave function has the same mathematics that can be
traced back to those *provided by a particle.
Even so, classical physics holds the major spot in physics where all
other theorems are attempts to topple its position as a collection or
laws or facts.
Maxwell's equations *as are equations by Gauss,
Faraday are today considered to be facts that have yet to be
overturned. Tho I call my work a theorem I can just as easily call
them a series of facts which are still accepted to this day. My
findings only uses facts. Classical physics has yet to be dethroned.
The masters were very smart people who were very careful with words
and interpretations of the visibles whereas even today the double
split experiment is torn with missinterpretations in continuation of a
unproven theory
None of the accepted facts that I have used mention the term of waves
and since these laws are part of classical physics I hold to them.
There has not been any theorem that has been expanded to the status of
a law such that classical
physics has been displaced. I am using only what Einstein failed to
locate that which he needed to
further his leanings towards the Standard Model and it was only this
failure that provided a reason to
look for different viewpoints.
If you have reason to displace the legitamacy of Classical Physics as
used by me *then state them.
What I have used is short and to the point so I am not presenting a
hardship to whome I consider as a qualified engineer
My best regards
Art

classical physics has been well dethroned by both relativity at the
high velocity end and quantum mechanics at the small side of the
scale. *classical physics does good at 'every day' speeds and for
macroscopic things... the types of things that newton and his
contemporaries would have been able to experiment with. *they could
not have known or measured things at very high energies as seen at
relativistic speeds, nor could they have measured things at subatomic
levels where the 'classical' laws break down.

K1RRR@ARRL posting response by Art Unwin

Are you saying that the laws of Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Gauss is
now defunct? What should I have used in their place if they were no
good in the areas that I worked with?
Why on earth did NEC work around the equations
of Maxwell when they had been toppled? I used Newton,Faraday,Maxwell
and Gauss's laws only.
Who and what has replaced them in the areas where I mistakenly used
them. Did Ohms laws
survive this onslaught and who got the award from Oslo? I would like
to have another stab at my work
using the data that has replaced them, so I could do with some
guidance from you so my work is not wasted again. Do you know what the
replacement antenna computer programs will be based upon and are any
presently available on the market?
Thanks for the update. Why not share what you have with QST so your
fellow hams may benefit
from the up to dated textbooks now supplied to the new generation in
Universities. I heard that Texas
is redoing all the school textbooks but I didn't realize that
education had taken such a radical change. And of course as science is
changed in Texas so goes the whole Country. On another thought, will
degrees obtained before this update be grandfathered in?
My very best regards
Art Unwin

On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

tom
K0TAR

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

You know almost all but only almost.

There are many aethers. One of them was Lorentz' aether in form of
motionless solid body. No such without any doubts. So it is obvious that it
is debunked.

You know that the Sun rotate together with the plasma and the dust. The
plasma and the dust is the Stokes' aether.
In that time another scientist Ludvig Lorenz was sure that in space is
enough matter to propagate the waves.
Both of them did not know that the electron exist.

Teachers could not stay up to date because the all is the top secret.
S*

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

I am in Stokes' time. Art citates the all super modern theories. Where you
see the synchronisation?
S*

On May 29, 7:11*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomoscinews:4c00720a$0$50153$8046368a@newsreade r.iphouse.net...

On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan *wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. *aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. *Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

I am in Stokes' time. Art citates the all super modern theories. Where you
see the synchronisation?
S*

no, art is stuck in newton's time, so you aren't that far apart.

On May 29, 1:28*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 28, 7:17*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On May 28, 4:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 28, 8:13*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

On May 27, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Now just hold on right there!
As I have stated before, wave is a descriptive word
and not a noun as described by a particle.

Please Google "wave particle duality of light".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2...rticle_duality
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil, you are missing a basic point about physics.
Classical physics is seen as factual. All other theorems are
replacement attempts to explain paradoxies provided by classical
physics. When ever one reads the duality theorem it is exactly that, a
theorem which many say is a myth that is being perpetuated, but even
so they declare the wave as a function purely because of mathematical
reasons that the wave function has the same mathematics that can be
traced back to those *provided by a particle.
Even so, classical physics holds the major spot in physics where all
other theorems are attempts to topple its position as a collection or
laws or facts.
Maxwell's equations *as are equations by Gauss,
Faraday are today considered to be facts that have yet to be
overturned. Tho I call my work a theorem I can just as easily call
them a series of facts which are still accepted to this day. My
findings only uses facts. Classical physics has yet to be dethroned.
The masters were very smart people who were very careful with words
and interpretations of the visibles whereas even today the double
split experiment is torn with missinterpretations in continuation of a
unproven theory
None of the accepted facts that I have used mention the term of waves
and since these laws are part of classical physics I hold to them.
There has not been any theorem that has been expanded to the status of
a law such that classical
physics has been displaced. I am using only what Einstein failed to
locate that which he needed to
further his leanings towards the Standard Model and it was only this
failure that provided a reason to
look for different viewpoints.
If you have reason to displace the legitamacy of Classical Physics as
used by me *then state them.
What I have used is short and to the point so I am not presenting a
hardship to whome I consider as a qualified engineer
My best regards
Art

classical physics has been well dethroned by both relativity at the
high velocity end and quantum mechanics at the small side of the
scale. *classical physics does good at 'every day' speeds and for
macroscopic things... the types of things that newton and his
contemporaries would have been able to experiment with. *they could
not have known or measured things at very high energies as seen at
relativistic speeds, nor could they have measured things at subatomic
levels where the 'classical' laws break down.

K1RRR@ARRL posting response by Art Unwin

Are you saying that the laws of Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Gauss is
now defunct? What should I have used in their place if they were no
good in the areas that I worked with?
Why on earth did NEC work around the equations
of Maxwell when they had been toppled? I used Newton,Faraday,Maxwell
and Gauss's laws only.
Who and what has replaced them in the areas where I mistakenly used
them. Did Ohms laws
survive this onslaught and who got the award from Oslo? I would like
to have another stab at my work
using the data that has replaced them, so I could do with some
guidance from you so my work is not wasted again. Do you know what the
replacement antenna computer programs will be based upon and are any
presently available on the market?
Thanks for the update. Why not share what you have with QST so your
fellow hams may benefit
from the up to dated textbooks now supplied to the new generation in
Universities. I heard that Texas
is redoing all the school textbooks but I didn't realize that
education had taken such a radical change. And of course as science is
changed in Texas so goes the whole Country. On another thought, will
degrees obtained before this update be grandfathered in?
My very best regards
Art Unwin

fortunately maxwell's equations work just fine for macroscopic stuff
like hams use, so you are still ok with those. when someone writes an
antenna program that uses qed you might want to upgrade though. and
newton still works for most cases you will ever run into, though it
would fail to explain some effects if you carried an atomic clock on a
high speed jet or tried to orbit your own satellite. Ohm's law is
still fine for anything you will do also, unless you really tried to
get into superconductive antennas, then you might have some problems.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Uzytkownik "tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

I am in Stokes' time. Art citates the all super modern theories. Where you
see the synchronisation?
S*

You are both babbling kooks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

You know almost all but only almost.

There are many aethers. One of them was Lorentz' aether in form of
motionless solid body. No such without any doubts. So it is obvious that it
is debunked.

You know that the Sun rotate together with the plasma and the dust. The
plasma and the dust is the Stokes' aether.
In that time another scientist Ludvig Lorenz was sure that in space is
enough matter to propagate the waves.
Both of them did not know that the electron exist.

Teachers could not stay up to date because the all is the top secret.
S*

Babbling idiot.

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 28, 9:46*pm, tom wrote:
On 5/28/2010 7:19 PM, K1TTT wrote:

On May 28, 5:35 pm, "Szczepan *wrote:
So Stokes' aether will be in schools in XXII century.
Do you agree?
S*

no, the teachers i had stayed up to date with things that have been
proven in this century. *aether theory was soundly debunked quite a
while ago and any teacher still pushing that should be retired.

Art and S are running remarkably parallel today. *Funny how people like
that can sync up once in a while.

tom
K0TAR

Even the same font, A's with krouzek(sp?)