"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4875818b$0$13948$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:7xNck.205681$SV4.152949@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> Assuming that the experimental results are correct, what does this mean
>> to
>> the whole panoply of ideas associated with Quantum mechanics?
>>
>> Bill
>>
> Well, after reading the above post yesterday morning I thought I'd wait
> untill the inevitable pandamonium settled. However, apart from Ben the
> silence is deafening.
> Should I be surprised at this silence?
Well, I was a little surprised also. But I suspect that it may be that
"they" are simply hoping I'll go away if they do nothing. Kinda like the
government's response to the energy problem over the last few decades.
>I truly don't know if that is the
> correct responce. Undoubtedly a clear indication of lack of experience
on
> my part.
> On a side note, Ben asked in a previous post whether or not using the
> negative numbers side in some theoretical works was valid. And since
then
> I
> have read the following.
> [quote]
> Imagine an AM antenna one-fiftieth of a wavelength long, that needs no
> radial ground system, occupies a small parcel of land, produces little
or
> no
> RFI (Radio Frequency Interference), has great bandwidth and performs
> better
> than a full-sized vertical radiator.
> Does this sound like a fantasy?
> Until recently, it would have been.
> Now working models of such an antenna exist in the Middle East and at
> NAB99
> (National Association of Broadcasters' 1999 Convention in Las Vegas).
> [/quote]
> [quote]
> The "reversed form" (negative solution) of Maxwell's Fourth Equation,
> states
> that a magnetic field can be produced without current flowing in a
> wire........
> On April 19, 1999, at the Las Vegas Convention Center, Brian Steward
from
> the Department of Engineering at Glasgow Caledonian University presented
a
> paper on what has been patented as the Crossed-Field Antenna
> [/quote]
> I found the above very interesting, and have begun to wonder at what
else
> may be lurking within other negative solutions.
> Is a negative power solution not valid? Negative work is still work is
it
> not?
See my notes on Benj's reply below.
> I've never been able become comfortable with the interpretion of Young's
> experiment. It's an interesting case (apparently) of where the
> interpreation has been tailored to fit the result. A difficult thing to
> critisize or question successfully. You are a brave man Bill!!
I own my own business. I am not a part of academia. My business has
nothing
to do with physics. My kids are all out of school and in non-academic
enterprises. My wife and I work together in our business.
My academic reputation cannot be destroyed by scorn or ad hominem
criticism.
My business cannot be damaged in the same way. My kids won't get bad
grades
because of who their father is. My wife won't get fired for the same
reason.
Brave?
Naw! The truly brave are the ones that do not have my "immunity" and still
speak out when they see really dumb stuff going on.
Bill
> Thank you very much,
> Highest regards,
> Vince
>
>
|
