Re: 1 FERTZ

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

Date: 3 Jun 2004 23:29:29 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c9nd8h$o91$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c9mo0e$i8o$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>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?
> >
> > ------------------
> > there is only a litle difference between netons calculations and yourse:
> >
> > nertons is *macrocosm*
> > wile your fertz should belong to microcosm
>
> Complete utter nonsense. An electromagnetic wave which comes from the
> orbit of the earth around the sun belongs *obviously* to the macrocosm,
> since that orbit itself belongs to the macrocosm. That the wave is
> essentially created by the motion of microscopic particles is
> *IRRELEVANT*, since the *MACROSCOPIC MOTION* of these particles is what
> creates the wave.
>
> Does the creation of a radio wave by an antenna *also* belong to the
> "microcosm"? If yes, then why is the frequency of the created wave
> *equal* to the frequency of the oscillating charges and currents in the
> antenna? Furthermore, why is this true *regardless of the shape of the
> antenna*?
-----------------------
here should come an insult but i will try to remain a gentlemen
 from now i will call it in short 'IBG' ie:
deserv an insult but try to remain a gentleman so IBG!
the em wave belongs in its orriginal to the microcosm
as you thank God started to realise
yet it has in specific cases a colaboration with
some bigger bodies as an antena
but IBG
cant you see the difference between our globe + SUN
and an antena???!!!
just in gereral - the antena is by no means simpler than our globe
it is much smaller it is composed of a pure metal
ans have a 'stick' or whire shape.
our glon and sun
are huge entites but still that is not the main diffrence
it is composed of ........ that kake it a huge mass
from the EM radiation point of view - need i go on with that
for aleged inteligent people?
that explanation was just for the tiny chance that you realy do not
understansd the difference.
and your curent discussion is a 'bonn afide' discussion
but in case you know the truth and you just fighting for your
lost honour, i will stop it
because in a sispute that is only beween two and there is no
sinserity, it is an endless case and a waist of time
so *others have to judge it*
and
Gordon Pusch Criss Dams and Richrd Herring
already tried to explain to you the iimposibility to calculate your Fertz
*not to mension your superFetrz*!!

(which you lie if you say that you have any model for it
such a claim is less than crookish or infintile or both of them
and does not deserve any respond - even from a crackpot like me !!!)

so i am not going with a ratinal discussion about it anymore
if you what to discuss other issues and do it rationally
thats ok for me.
--------------------------
Y.Porat
--------------------

>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1 FERTZ
    ... An electromagnetic wave which comes from the ... > since that orbit itself belongs to the macrocosm. ... the em wave belongs in its orriginal to the microcosm ... already tried to explain to you the iimposibility to calculate your Fertz ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Extra Low Frequencies
    ... sorry i didnt notice that thread so i didnt respond ... Hi old farter Schwartzy or whaever is your fucken real name" ... what is the biggest wave length ever detected ... i Fertz has the wave lenght of *one light year* ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: diameter of proton, neutron wrt electron
    ... old croock and the Fertz inventor ... it is an EM wave that has the frequency of one cycle --per year!! ... em wave with once cycle of 100 billion years thats the invention of the ...
    (sci.physics)