Re: 1 FERTZ
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 06/04/04
- Next message: David McAnally: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: My New Website"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: 1 FERTZ"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: 1 FERTZ"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: 1 FERTZ"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 10:46:51 +0200
Y.Porat wrote:
> 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
Good joke.
> from now i will call it in short 'IBG' ie:
> deserv an insult but try to remain a gentleman so IBG!
Making up yet another nonsensical, ridiculous term...
> the em wave belongs in its orriginal to the microcosm
That sentence is totally meaningless. An em wave does not "belong"
to anything or anywhere.
The wave is *created* by the *macroscopic* motion of *microscopic*
particles. As nicely shown by every antenna. Try to understand
that very simple fact.
Oh, if you disagree, I challenge you to try *any* physicist who
agrees with you and disagrees with me.
> as you thank God started to realise
I realised nothing like that. I say and always have said that
the wave is *created* by the *macroscopic* motion of *microscopic*
particles.
> yet it has in specific cases a colaboration with
> some bigger bodies as an antena
What on earth might "collaboration" mean here?
> but IBG
> cant you see the difference between our globe + SUN
> and an antena???!!!
The globe and its orbit around the sun is much bigger and
composed of different stuff. Both is *totally* irrelevant for
applying Maxwell's equations.
> just in gereral - the antena is by no means simpler than our globe
I never claimed it were. So what? That is *totally* irrelevant
for applying Maxwell's equations. Hint: I kept rho_0 and j_0
*completely* arbitrary in my calculation - any complexity which
is there will be contained in these factors, and hence is
*irrelevant* for the time dependence of the radiation.
> it is much smaller it is composed of a pure metal
> ans have a 'stick' or whire shape.
See above. All entirely irrelevant for the calculation.
> our glon
globe? Again, your typing mistakes are really interesting.
> and sun are huge entites
See above. All entirely irrelevant for the calculation.
> but still that is not the main diffrence
> it is composed of ........ that kake it a huge mass
"kake"???
> from the EM radiation point of view - need i go on with that
> for aleged inteligent people?
For the 20th time: all that is *completely* irrelevant for the
calculation, since all that complexity is contained in the factors
rho_0 and j_0, whose values are *irrelevant* for the time dependence
of the radiation.
Thanks for showing once again that you have no clue of physics and
are totally unable to understand how equations can be used to
describe stuff in the real world.
> that explanation was just for the tiny chance that you realy do not
> understansd the difference.
I *do* understand the differences, and they are *irrelevant* for the
calculation, since all of them are contained in rho_0 and j_0, and
the values of those quantities are *irrelevant* for the time dependence
of the radiation!
> and your curent discussion is a 'bonn afide' discussion
Huh? Even taking in account that you probably meant "bona fide",
I have no clue what you wanted to say here.
> but in case you know the truth and you just fighting for your
> lost honour, i will stop it
I know the truth. I am right, and you are wrong and have no clue
what you are talking about.
If you think otherwise, I challenge you to write down Maxwell's
equations (hint: you can look them up in my recent post) and explain
what the different terms in them mean, and what every equation on its
own means.
> because in a sispute that is only beween two and there is no
> sinserity,
I am quite sincere. I have said the same stuff again and again.
I'll repeat it here again for convenience:
1) The wave is *created* by the *macroscopic* motion of *microscopic*
particles.
2) All the complexity is contained in the factors rho_0 and j_0, whose
values are *irrelevant* for the time dependence of the radiation.
> it is an endless case and a waist of time
> so *others have to judge it*
Unfortunately for you, all others have apparently left the thread now.
> 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*!!
They did do nothing like that. You totally misunderstood their
arguments. No wonder - since you have no clue what you are talking about.
> (which you lie if you say that you have any model for it
I presented a model for it several times now. You continue to ignore it.
> such a claim is less than crookish or infintile or both of them
Why?
> and does not deserve any respond - even from a crackpot like me !!!)
In other words: you can't answer my arguments, hence you will simply
continue to ignore them.
> so i am not going with a ratinal discussion about it anymore
Your side of the discussion *was* never rational.
> if you what to discuss other issues and do it rationally
> thats ok for me.
Well, what I said in this discussion *was* always rational.
> --------------------------
> Y.Porat
> --------------------
>
>
>>
You forgot to point out that you are a crackpot.
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: David McAnally: "Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: My New Website"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: 1 FERTZ"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: 1 FERTZ"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: 1 FERTZ"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
