Re: Through a glass darkly

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 16:06:52 -0500

"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:1111945658.31038.1@lotis.uk.clara.net...
>
> "jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3anue3F6d46fdU1@individual.net...
> |
> | "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:1111913701.2960.1@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
> | >
> | [snip]
> | > | > Tell me if I'm converting this right:-
> | > |
> | > | I doubt it LOL
> | > | I have seen such a table for a simple dipole but
> | > | I can't seem to google it up today. Anyway,
> | > | atomic oscillators are eliptical structures.
> | > |
> | >
> | > Only if moving or Tx/RXing ? unmoving against background vacuum, stable
> non
> | > occulting atomic oscilators in a zero gravity field should be spherical?
>
> | Circular or Eliptical. Isotropic raditors are impossible. No magnetic
> | monopoles.
>
> Neutrons to you :-)? But I do think they are 2D polarised spatial radiators
> if you force um.?
> Monopoles, totempoles give me instance of either but preferably the first.?
>
positrons and electrons are electric monopoles.
You can separate them and they still behave.

I am the cowgirl. You are spose to know about totems.

When a charge moves clockwise to make a north pole,
an observer on the other side sees CCW rotation and
senses a south pole. Cut it in half; move it somewhere
else; it still has a CW view and a CCW view.

Thus... no magnetic monopoles.

> |
> | Exerpt:
> | Various polarization states of the wave are characterized by the
> | way the amplitude vector for the electric field depends on time:
> | When is constant in time, it always points in the same direction;
> | we refer to this case as plane polarization.
> | When the magnitude, is constant, but the direction rotates with
> | time, we refer to that as circular polarization.
> | When not even the magnitude is constant, we refer to that as
> | elliptical polarization.
> | The elliptical case is clearly the most general case;
> | --Daniel Finley 2001-01-23
>
> Have to check your links later.
Do try to have that done before the whip arrives which
I sent to the *missus* by express post. >:-)
>
> | http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/P262/CircPolar2/CircPolar2.html
> |
> | http://physics.tamuk.edu/~suson/html/4323/polar.html
> | >
> | > | >
> | > | > a)wave at 0 E,H at 0
> | > | > b) wave at +max E,H at 90 deg
> | > | > c) wave at 0 E,H at 0
> | > | > d) wave at -max H,E at 90 deg
> | > | > e) wave at 0 E,H at 0
> | > | > f) = one cycle = E,H have traversed 360 deg = 90D open+ 90D close
> 90D
> | > open -
> | > | > 90D close =one wavelength
> | > | >
> | > | > I don't quite get the significance of your question as this is a
> partial
> | > | > description of EMR generation the shift due to motion of the
> particle
> | > would
> | > | > be caused by the generation point moving against the vacuum state
> and
> | > would
> | > | > compress or decompress the transmitted wavelength. I still cant
> parse
> | > your
> | > | > question as it seems to make no sense as it seems impossible not to
> have
> | > | > 360D for one wavelength
> | > |
> | > | Sadly... there is just no simple way to model the gears and cogs in
> | > | the first few wavelenghts of any particular structure. This is one of
> | > | the reasons QM is pressed beyond it's limits.
> | >
> | > Working.................. :-) Ah! ha! but am digesting below
>
> See new posting this thread update
Sigh... I'll have to recall the minions from holiday.
>
> Look at below later have read such years ago but cant remember details

Yeah... I don't know how involved ya want to get in that. Once ya
get comfortable with 1/r^3 and the time and range pecularities it
imposes on charges, you will probably have more than you can
stand. When you can hook Maxwell to SR without funny clocks,
then you're in the upper 5% of the class. It is really just tracking
which shell the energy pea is hidden under as the magician moves
them in time and space.

>
> | > | From:
> | > | Understanding electromagnetic fields and antenna radiation takes
> (almost)
> | > no math
> | > | http://www.edn.com/contents/images/82250.pdf
> | > | http://www.edn.com/article/CA82250.html
> | > | pdf above recommended for equations
> | > |
> | > | http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/gdwn/Multivariable_Wave_Impedance.html
> | > | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html
> | > |
> | > | 5.5. High-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Simulation
> | > | http://www.oulu.fi/atkk/tkpalv/unix/ansys-6.1/content/thy_emg5.html
> | > |
> | > | I will keep an eye open for the sketch that shows reactive
> | > | energy distribution. because it is almost the table you produced
> | > | above.
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
> | > | > | From:
> | > | > | http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=+site:aa.usno.navy.mil+usno+atmosphere+sunset
> You are a cracker in the nicest nicest possible way :-)
Crackers are from Florida. Considering recent events there I'm
not sure that is a comliment. :o)
>
> Electrons are collapsed negative far field cycles. Woman are woman and are
> unamenable to analysis because they wriggle about to much :-) Does that let
> you in but please don't bust it to much:-)
>
Hmmm " Electrons are collapsed negative far field cycles? "
I think I'll wait 'till that one comes out on DVD before I comment on it.

Sue...

> Ardvark nearly fogottmy name then :-)
>
> | Sue...
> |
> | [snip]
> |
> |
>
>