Re: Circular polarization... does it have to be synchronous??

On Dec 13, 9:38 pm, John Smith <assemblywiz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

 >> ...> I proved beyond doubt that radiation was via particles and not waves.

 >> ...

Best regards
Art Unwin.......KB9MZ.......xg (uk)

Actually, that is false ... you could not prove such a thing, unless you
force us to disbelieve our own eyes!  To proceed claiming such is only
to invite us to think you daft!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14172?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1....

The best you can now argue is that light is composed of a type(s) of
particle(s) which travels as a wave(s);  And, still, it seems to possess
both qualities--i.e., behaving both as particles AND waves ... but then,
we already knew that.

Regards,
JS

John I am confident about my analysis. Scientists have not been able
to explain
anything in radio that procedes at the or near the speed of light or
explain how communication is resolved.
I have provided an explanation that is duplicated in many ways every
day and vindicated by Maxwells equations.
Reviewing the URL you supplied. The photograph is not a simple proof
that it appears to be. Camera pictures are notorious
in fooling people into falible interpretatations. However you can
believe what you want. I would point out that I have melded many
things and aproaches
such that all mesh in a single conclusion None of these separate
aproaches have had any errors pointed out whether it be mathematics or
otherwise.
I am not a programmer so there is no way I could have injected such a
complicated scenario into all the programs now available. Nor could I
have invented the weak force that Einstein was convinced resided in
the analysis of radiation. On the other hand there are many
photographs available of the Lock Ness monster, alien space craft and
alabaster statues with tears coming from the eyes. By the way, compare
different aproaches of resolving radiation analysis and check which
form provides the minimum losses and you will find that planar
antennas just don't measure up versus antennas in equilibrium. On the
other hand if the field of an eddy current is not the weak force that
Einstein forcast or predicted then where and what is this force that
propels a wave, presumably without spin that knocks out what I have
suggested? At the same time does it fit exactgly the jigsaw pussle
that Maxwell left us with the puzzle turned over so the picture could
not be pre determined? And as a finale I see particles occilating
possibly in tandem form that gives the impression that the particles
arenot interconnected in string form but a series of interactions
between particles that operate in their own right als
H2O in molecular but unbound form as with mass
Best regards...... good effort but no cigar. I would aim for best
results at the computer programs or finding the true weak force, or
determining how a electrical wave travels with intelligence or the
center of all proove that the mathematics as applied to gaussian
boundary that is made dynamic under a time varying field DOES NOT
equate with the mathematical laws of Maxwell and last of all that the
term equilibrium has NO PLACE in the laws devised by the masters with
respect to the Universe. I left out the part that a radiater must be
straight as expoused by some pseudo experts in the radio field as well
as to how the addition that Maxwells made to his laws provide the
mathematics for the tilting action on a radiator for minimum lossand
the many other things I have pointed out
My very best regards and best wishes in any endeavor that you wish to
undertake in an effort to proove me in error. There will be some
talking in tongues by the group but I am absolutely positive there
will be no fresh revalations other than just words provided over the
years which have meant nothing
other than the intent to hurt. Goodnight
Art Unwin KB9MZ..........XG....(UK)
.

Loading