Re: 1 FERTZ

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 06/03/04 

Date: 2 Jun 2004 21:32:32 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c9kvur$4mk$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
>
>
> >>-----------------------
> >
> > that was very impressive
>
> Nice that you think so.
>
>
>
>
> > but still i didnt see the botom line in figures
>
> As suspected: you fail to get the point.
>
> I repeat the relevant equations here:
> rho(r,t) = rho_0(r) e^(-i omega t) (9)
> and
> j(r,t) = j_0(r) e^(-i omega t) (10)
> I.e. we start with a charge and current distribution
------------------------
you have to show that this charge distribution
fits the *real one* including all thoes measured
on our planet that is called earth including
the disturbances of sun and other ones of our globe

you have to show that you know exactly all the real factors that
act in reality not only on your paper
can an ashole crook like you unserstand the difference between
your matemathics on your paper and *all the complicated
factors of reality??**(that other readers pinted to you?
you ignored all of the reservationes that
other readers ponted to you about the real situation
and stick o0nly to your paper.

it seems that you are not even aware of the compexity of
our real world and its environment!
incuding not only the electric changes but the magnetic changes as well

and we have not spoken yet about your *measuring your Fertz*
and we didnt yet mension you *super fertz*
and all the factors that influence it

 what asbout your
superfertz ???
you have to remember that our debate is a proncipal one
your claim is that there is no bottom limit to the maxwell
equation
so leta start to examine your superfertz as well
in order to see what is the goal of our discussion
if it leads to anything ??

had you a minimal comon physics sense
you would admit right now that once you think about your *superfertz*
it is dead before born- because you cant even suggest
a tail of a model to even start to think about it
--------------
i didnt let you go even with your fertz
the super fertz that i mension is just a trial

*to put you on your legs of reality and to save all
 (originating from a stoopid pride rescue battle)
that stupid waist of time and energy.*

if you dont get it and insist hoping that i will get tired of you
we will go on with your Fertz

 anyway i am sure the other readers
got already long ago tierd of your stoopid manuvers.

so bottom line:
your calculatin is wrong because you *ignored all thr real factors
of our real globe.*
iow it has nothing to do with reality
you dont believe?
measure one fertz experimantally.! or else
you are just a fertz waiver.
---------------
crackpot
Y.Porat

 which is periodic
> with the frequency f = omega / 2 pi. For the example here, f = 1/1 year
> (since the motion of the earth around the sun *obviously* represents a
> charge and current distribution which is changing periodically with that
> frequency!).
>
> And we arrive at:
> E = e^(-i omega t) (-grad Phi_0(r) + i omega/c A_0(r))
> and
> B = e^(-i omega t) rot A_0(r).
> So the fields are *also* periodic with the *same* frequency f as above.
> In other words: there are periodic fields with a frequency of f = omega/
> 2 pi = 1/1 year. In other words: there is an electromagnetic wave with
> the frequency 1/1 year.
>
> Do you understand now? The frequency of the wave is the same as the
> frequency of the densities!
>
>
> > you know i think that is i will insert numbers and
> > actual data i will get 1 Hertz not 1 fertz
> > what do you think about it?
>
> I think that you didn't understand anything about the calculation.
>
> Prove me wrong. Insert some figures in *any* of the equations above
> and get 1 Hz. I'm waiting...
>
>
> > am i wrong ???
> > letas see your figures!!(numbers)
>
> See above. If the charge and current density change periodically with a
> frequency f (in the example here: f = 1/1 year), then the fields will
> change periodically with the same frequency f = 1/1 year.
>
>
> > btw dont you realise that you are making a bigger and bigger *** of
> > youself ??
>
> By writing down a mathematical proof, I'm making an *** of myself?
> Interesting. You have a strange notion of what "***" means...
>
>
> > do you think that the wole world is stoopid?
>
> No - but I think that you haven't understood a word of my proof.
>
>
> > to fail to see that you are a crook? and a sore looser?
>
> Hint: you are *still* the only one who claims that.
>
>
> > ---------
> > --------------------
> >
>
> This time, you not only forgot to point out that you are a crackpot -
> you also forgot to mention your own name! Does this imply that
> you are ashamed yourself of the nonsense you write?
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern

Quantcast