Re: 1 FERTZ

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 06/03/04 

Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:37:33 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> 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

Err, the spatial distribution of the charge and the current
is *completely arbitrary* here - it is included in the factors
rho_0 and j_0. The argument works for *any* spatial distribution.
The only relevant point is the dependence of the distribution
*on time*.

Do you dispute that the motion of the earth around the sun represents
a charge and current distribution which is changing periodically with
a frequency of 1/1 year, or what?

Oh, BTW, when Newton computed the orbit of the earth around the
sun - had he also to consider all the details of the mass distribution
in the earth, in your opinion?

> can an ashole crook like you unserstand the difference between
> your matemathics on your paper and *all the complicated
> factors of reality??**

Yes, I can understand that.

> (that other readers pinted to you?

Other readers merely mentioned the plasma frequency caused
by the plasma of the solar wind - which doesn't change my
argument in the least.

> you ignored all of the reservationes that
> other readers ponted to you about the real situation
> and stick o0nly to your paper.

Err, no. I *dealt* with these reservations, and it turned out
that they are simply irrelevant for the problem at hand.

> it seems that you are not even aware of the compexity of
> our real world and its environment!

I am. The complexity of the real world is as irrelevant for
the production of this wave as it is for the orbit of the earth
around the sun itself.

> incuding not only the electric changes but the magnetic changes as well

Hint: I included a current density in my calculations explicitly. I also
gave the result for the changes in the magnetic field. What more do
you want?

> and we have not spoken yet about your *measuring your Fertz*

I freely acknowledged several times now that it would be hard,
if not impossible to measure. SO WHAT?????

You *still* do not understand the difference between "wild, hand waving
speculations" and "predictions of a well-established theory"!!!

> and we didnt yet mension you *super fertz*

Feel free to mention it. The same calculation applies to it. We only
have to find a motion which has a Fourier component (I bet that you
don't know what that is!) with a period of 100 billion years. And
I already suggested several times a possibility for that.

> and all the factors that influence it

"all the factors" are *irrelevant* for the specific prediction of
the frequency of the wave, since that frequency does *not* depend
on the *spatial* distribution, but only on the *time dependence*
of the densities. As the calculation clearly shows. Unfortunately, you
are unable to understand it.

> what asbout your superfertz ???

Yes, what about it?

> you have to remember that our debate is a proncipal one
> your claim is that there is no bottom limit to the maxwell
> equation

I claim that there is *no reason to think* that there is such a bottom
limit. I claim that there is *no evidence* for such a bottom limit.

I freely admit that there *could* be such a bottom limit - but if
you claim there is, you have to provide *evidence* for its existence.

> so leta start to examine your superfertz as well

Oh, I see - you realized that you begin to lose the discussion about the
"Fertz", so you move the goalposts.

> in order to see what is the goal of our discussion
> if it leads to anything ??

The "goal" in this thread had been to show you that a charge and current
distribution which is varying periodically with a frequency f produces
an em wave with that same frequency. If you want to claim that there
is a limit on the frequency of em waves, you thus have to show that
there is a limit on the frequency of periodic changes in charge and
current distributions. Good luck.

> had you a minimal comon physics sense

Hint: common sense is often misleading in physics. Nicely shown by you.

> 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 suggested a model *lots* of times now: a moving galaxy cluster. You
continue to ignore that proposal.

> --------------
> 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.*

The only one who wastes time here is *you* - by continuing to
insist on things for which there is no evidence at all, and which
contradict well-established theories. But that's nothing new
for you, I know...

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

You could try to understand my arguments for a change.

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

Strange, then, that you are *still* the only one who calls the idea
ridiculous, don't you think?

> so bottom line:
> your calculatin is wrong because you *ignored all thr real factors
> of our real globe.*

The "real factors" are there - in rho_0 and j_0.

Thanks for showing again that you haven't got the faintest clue what
you are talking about.

> iow it has nothing to do with reality
> you dont believe?
> measure one fertz experimantally.! or else
> you are just a fertz waiver.

You *still* do not understand the difference between "wild, hand waving
speculations" and "predictions of a well-established theory".

> ---------------
> crackpot
> Y.Porat

Thanks that you keep pointing that out.

[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

Relevant Pages

  • Re: want help learning practical circuit design
    ... Could anybody suggest me some real good book on practical circuit design. ... can even be the culprit in blocking intuition. ... The most important change for me was to reassess from a charge ... distribution point of view, not state variables. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: A New Foundation for Physics
    ... > So the proton charge distribution does have a non-zero volume. ... The electron is simply a quantum amount of angular momentum that ... You will notice that Planck's constant only has two length dimensions. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: 1 FERTZ
    ... >>I.e. we start with a charge and current distribution ... I claim that there is *no evidence* for such a bottom limit. ... "Fertz", ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Connection charge
    ... No, BT have to run a pair all the way from the exchange to the distribution point, which for a new development in an already telephonically congested area may involve opening the ground and running new ducts and cables for several miles. ... Compare BT's standard charge of £125 which what is charged for new connections to gas, electricity, water and sewerage systems and BT's connection is a bargain. ... The only difference is that to get the certificate from Building Control that the building is habitable, the building has to have water, electricity, heating and sewerage installations working, so the builder absorbs them into his costs. ...
    (uk.telecom)
Quantcast