Is the concept in this paper accepted by the scientific community?

[Mark]

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/16073/InTech-The_fundamental_physics_of_electromagnetic_waves.pdf

The paper contends that the fundamental quantum of EM energy is "one
cycle" of the EM wave instead of the photon..

It seems to make sense but I have not read anything else like this.

Is this generally accepted or is this out in left field (so to speak)

thanks

Mark

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Mark" <mako...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:bbe758da-bf5f-4be9...@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

Nobody know what are the EM waves. So everybody can wrote what he want.

In reality are the electric waves.
Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell.
Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission of
electric
waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".

Look at the names of scientists in the Juliana's paper and Marconi's.
S*

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "Mark" <mako...@yahoo.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:bbe758da-bf5f-4be9...@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/16073/InTech-The_fundamental_physics_of_electromagnetic_waves.pdf
>>
>> The paper contends that the fundamental quantum of EM energy is "one
>> cycle" of the EM wave instead of the photon..
>>
>> It seems to make sense but I have not read anything else like this.
>>
>> Is this generally accepted or is this out in left field (so to speak)
>
> Nobody know what are the EM waves. So everybody can wrote what he want.

Everybody that has studied the subject for the last 80 years or so knows
what EM waves are.

Only idiots like you than can't understand modern theory don't know.

> In reality are the electric waves.
> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.

Most of EM theory came AFTER 1909, so referencing material from 1909 is
blazingly stupid.

> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell.

Yeah, because the theories hadn't been fully developed yet.

> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission of
> electric
> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".

Yep, Marconi didn't know and was wrong about a lot of things. It was all
figured out AFTER Marconi's death.

> Look at the names of scientists in the Juliana's paper and Marconi's.

Look at the names of scientists after 1909 and you might learn something.



--
Jim Pennino

[benj]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:41:43 +0000, jimp wrote:
> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:

>> Nobody know what are the EM waves. So everybody can wrote what he want.
>
> Everybody that has studied the subject for the last 80 years or so knows
> what EM waves are.
>
> Only idiots like you than can't understand modern theory don't know.

> Most of EM theory came AFTER 1909, so referencing material from 1909 is
> blazingly stupid.

<snip typical idiot ignorant jimp babble>

Why is it that the people who are the most primitive idiots think that
they know it all! Jimp and Wormley being two prime examples.

Nobody knows what light (em waves) is. Period.

Modern physics just babbles on like jimp with stupidities pretending
somehow it all makes sense. It does not.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Like I said, only idiots like you that can't understand modern theory,
i.e. the stuff discovered after 1909, don't know what electromagnetic
radiation is or how it works.




--
Jim Pennino

[Larry Harson]

On May 2, 10:42 pm, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:41:43 +0000, jimp wrote:
> > Szczepan Bialek <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> >> Nobody know what are the EM waves. So everybody can wrote what he want.
>
> > Everybody that has studied the subject for the last 80 years or so knows
> > what EM waves are.
>
> > Only idiots like you than can't understand modern theory don't know.
> > Most of EM theory came AFTER 1909, so referencing material from 1909 is
> > blazingly stupid.
>
> <snip typical idiot ignorant jimp babble>
>
> Why is it that the people who are the most primitive idiots think that
> they know it all! Jimp and Wormley being two prime examples.
>
> Nobody knows what light (em waves) is. Period.

They have a very good understanding of how it behaves as a localised
particle of light with a vave function.

> Modern physics just babbles on like jimp with stupidities pretending
> somehow it all makes sense. It does not.

Anything but!

The quantum mechanical behaviour of photons confused scientists in the
1920s, and still does so today. But the equations that model its
behaviour are incredibly accurate.

Regards, Larry.

[benj]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:28:12 -0700, Larry Harson wrote:

>> Modern physics just babbles on like jimp with stupidities pretending
>> somehow it all makes sense. It does not.
>
> Anything but!
>
> The quantum mechanical behaviour of photons confused scientists in the
> 1920s, and still does so today. But the equations that model its
> behaviour are incredibly accurate.
>
> Regards, Larry.

So a theory that simply relies on probability calculations using
imaginary waves in nothing at all is "incredibly accurate" science?

Most real problems can't even be solved for a "probable" answer even with
computers! Imaginary "energy wells" is your idea of reality?

Perhaps you and jimp need to rethink your statements.

And jimp you can explain wave-particle duality to us paying particular
attention to what mechanisms underlie the equations. You can't even
explain if an electron splits and goes through two slits or just goes
through one but has "feelers" for sensing the other slit. Please explain
this all to us jimp using your vast storehouse of electromagnetic
knowledge! You can join in too Larry!

And PS, the concept in the paper is an old one and was shown from the
start to just be plain wrong. His adding time as a fudge factor doesn't
change that.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:28:12 -0700, Larry Harson wrote:
>
>>> Modern physics just babbles on like jimp with stupidities pretending
>>> somehow it all makes sense. It does not.
>>
>> Anything but!
>>
>> The quantum mechanical behaviour of photons confused scientists in the
>> 1920s, and still does so today. But the equations that model its
>> behaviour are incredibly accurate.
>>
>> Regards, Larry.
>
> So a theory that simply relies on probability calculations using
> imaginary waves in nothing at all is "incredibly accurate" science?

Nope, but since that is not what electromagnetic theory is, your question
is irrelevant to the discussion.

<snip confused babbling>





--
Jim Pennino

[Szczepan Bialek]

<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:n3la5a-...@mail.specsol.com...

> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>
>> In reality are the electric waves.
>> Take a glance on the Marconi Nobel lecture from 1909.
>
> Most of EM theory came AFTER 1909, so referencing material from 1909 is
> blazingly stupid.
>
>> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-lecture.pdf
>> There (in references) no EM waves. No Heaviside. No Maxwell.
>
> Yeah, because the theories hadn't been fully developed yet.
>
>> Marconi wrote: "In my opinion many facts connected with the transmission
>> of
>> electric
>> waves over great distances still await a satisfactory explanation".
>
> Yep, Marconi didn't know and was wrong about a lot of things. It was all
> figured out AFTER Marconi's death.
>
>> Look at the names of scientists in the Juliana's paper and Marconi's.
>
> Look at the names of scientists after 1909 and you might learn something.

Could you lists the scientists who developed the EM waves theory?
S*

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:

> Could you lists the scientists who developed the EM waves theory?

For a modern view of electromagnetic radiation, start with Lorentz and
Einstein.

As for antennas in particular, you could try stuff by Balanis, Stutzman,
or Kraus.

Or you could continue to quote all the stuff Marconi got wrong and sound
like a babbling idiot.





--
Jim Pennino

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/3/2013 5:29 AM, benj wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:28:12 -0700, Larry Harson wrote:

...

>> The quantum mechanical behaviour of photons confused scientists in the
>> 1920s, and still does so today. But the equations that model its
>> behaviour are incredibly accurate.
>>
>> Regards, Larry.
>
> So a theory that simply relies on probability calculations using

> imaginary waves in nothing at all ...

Are you confusing quantum field theory with an
older version from earlier centuries, perhaps?
Quantum fields are much more complicated than
"waves", and the quantum vacuum isn't "nothing"
but is more or less as complicated as a state
with some quanta in it.

> ... is "incredibly accurate" science?

Whether it is accurate depends on whether it
makes accurate predictions. GPS accuracy may
be "incredibly accurate" to some, I guess..
(Personally I believe in it, I have to add.)

> Most real problems can't even be solved for a "probable" answer even with
> computers! Imaginary "energy wells" is your idea of reality?

Those were not mentioned at all! Where in the
thread did you get the impression that Larry
wants imaginary energy wells to describe
reality?

...

> And jimp you can explain wave-particle duality to us paying particular
> attention to what mechanisms underlie the equations.

But isn't that an obsolete question? Can you
formulate what you mean with this "duality"
(lest the answer given to you might be 42).

> ... You can't even

> explain if an electron splits and goes through two slits or just goes
> through one but has "feelers" for sensing the other slit.

You talk like an electron is an object, but
it isn't. It's a quantum which describes the
difference between two states of the field.
Why would anyone explain whether a difference
between situations is going through slits?!

Or perhaps you mean with "an electron" some
state of the quantum field that is one quantum
above the vacuum? Still your question would
be meaningless..

Of course it would be already meaningless if
we were still talking about old simple wave
equations instead of a quantum field. Also
there, no-one needs to explain whether a wave
goes through one slit. It simply doesn't, in
general! But wave mechanics does not explain
the outcome of real experiments so in that
case you would have a point in challenging
it. (It simply is wrong.)

For a quantum field, with decoherence of
simultaneous results, what objection do you
still see? (Is it the obvious one that you feel
uneasy with other co-existing alternatives?!)

--
Jos

[benj]

jimp as usual YOUR statements are totally irrelevant to ANY discussion.

Here, let me help you. See that quote above that you put in YOUR post it
was Larry bringing up QM as "incredibly accurate". Given how few real
problems it can calculate I take issue with that. Interesting theory that
predicted many things that nothing did before, for sure, but "incredibly
accurate"? I don't think so.

And YOU claimed all of EM was totally understood beyond any doubt. So I
ask you to explain diffraction of light. You don't even give me a correct
EM explanation let alone one that totally fits reality! All you ever do
is "snip babble" to make yourself feel superior but never actually supply
any information to back up such claims.

Either join the conversation or just shut up.

[benj]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 13:09:17 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> On 5/3/2013 5:29 AM, benj wrote:

>> So a theory that simply relies on probability calculations using
>> imaginary waves in nothing at all ...
>
> Are you confusing quantum field theory with an older version from
> earlier centuries, perhaps? Quantum fields are much more complicated
> than "waves", and the quantum vacuum isn't "nothing"
> but is more or less as complicated as a state with some quanta in it.

Quantum fields follow solution of the wave equation. Seems significant,
no? If a "quantum vacuum" isn't "nothing" then what is it? Oh wait. How
about "mystery".

>> ... is "incredibly accurate" science?
>
> Whether it is accurate depends on whether it makes accurate predictions.
> GPS accuracy may be "incredibly accurate" to some, I guess.. (Personally
> I believe in it, I have to add.)

So "incredibly accurate" is relative? OK. I'll buy that. So if you are
talking no solutions at all vs something that looks like what is
measured. Yeah OK. But EM calculations are what *I* call "incredibly
accurate" Not QM probabilistic hand waving. EM works to almost as many
decimal places as you can measure, even though it's known to be an
incorrect theory. Still "incredibly accurate" in it's agreement with
measurements, given enough energy to average.

>> Most real problems can't even be solved for a "probable" answer even
>> with computers! Imaginary "energy wells" is your idea of reality?
>
> Those were not mentioned at all! Where in the thread did you get the
> impression that Larry wants imaginary energy wells to describe reality?

Larry said that QM calculations were "incredibly accurate". Don't you
guys read? Jos I don't have to tell you what kind of "assumptions" are
made to create those "incredibly accurate" calculations! You already know
that.

>> And jimp you can explain wave-particle duality to us paying particular
>> attention to what mechanisms underlie the equations.
>
> But isn't that an obsolete question? Can you formulate what you mean
> with this "duality" (lest the answer given to you might be 42).
>
>> ... You can't even
>> explain if an electron splits and goes through two slits or just goes
>> through one but has "feelers" for sensing the other slit.
>
> You talk like an electron is an object, but it isn't. It's a quantum
> which describes the difference between two states of the field. Why
> would anyone explain whether a difference between situations is going
> through slits?!

See this is EXACTLY the problem here. Larry says QM is "incredibly
accurate" and you say it doesn't even describe real objects. It's all
just imaginary nomenclature that is manipulated to feel good.

Hint: Physics deals with real objects not imaginary ones.

> Or perhaps you mean with "an electron" some state of the quantum field
> that is one quantum above the vacuum? Still your question would be
> meaningless..

Questions about real experiments and real matter and real effects are
physics, not "meaningless". Questions about the meaning of words, the
naming of imaginary objects and their relationships is psychology not
physics. Are electrons self-actualizing?

> Of course it would be already meaningless if we were still talking about
> old simple wave equations instead of a quantum field. Also there, no-one
> needs to explain whether a wave goes through one slit. It simply
> doesn't, in general! But wave mechanics does not explain the outcome of
> real experiments so in that case you would have a point in challenging
> it. (It simply is wrong.)

So your argument is that if a certain mathematical mechanics (lets be
honest here) "sort of" produce results close enough to a few actual
experiments, we can simply extend the whole concept to a world view by
extrapolating into all areas where it was not demonstrated at all? And
even better, just accept that without question? I don't think so. That
isn't science.

> For a quantum field, with decoherence of simultaneous results, what
> objection do you still see? (Is it the obvious one that you feel uneasy
> with other co-existing alternatives?!)

What objections do I see? What is a "quantum field"? What is
"decoherence"? What are "simultaneous results? What is "action at a
distance? If terms don't have meaning grounded in physical reality, then
they are just psycho-babble.

It's like religious people arguing about terms like "the trinity". You
can argue half a day over it, and people on all sides are sure they are
right about it, but in the end it's just words with no experimental
verification. So people just shout dogma at each other.

This thread was started with bold statements about how much was known
about electromagnetics and I pointed out that nobody has a clue what even
light is! And then Larry decided that QM was "Incredibly accurate". And
then Jos decided that if you have a jargon name for something that
"explains" it. I suggest that just a tiny bit less exuberance would be
far more realistic.

[Szczepan Bialek]

<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisał w wiadomości
news:jg9d5a-...@mail.specsol.com...

> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> Could you lists the scientists who developed the EM waves theory?
>
> For a modern view of electromagnetic radiation, start with Lorentz and
> Einstein.

Fresnel, Maxwell, Heaviside, Hertz, A.H. Lorentz and Einstein "need" the
aether to propagate the light waves.
They assumed that the aether is like a dielectric.

On the other hand Faraday, L. Lorenz, Marconi/Tesla and Dirac need the
"Electron sea" as the medium.

The "modern view of electromagnetic radiation" is: "EM waves are solutions
of Maxwell's equations, which are the fundamental equations of
electrodynamics. EM waves require no medium, they can travel through empty
space".

I am asking who discovered such EM waves?
S*

[Szczepan Bialek]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:Xaaht.36126$TG3....@newsfe04.iad...

>
> This thread was started with bold statements about how much was known
> about electromagnetics and I pointed out that nobody has a clue what even
> light is!

Everybody (in scientist area) know:
Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the vibrations of light with
electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301

http://books.google.pl/books?id=caJdQfAKHtMC&hl=pl&pg=RA1-PA287#v=onepage&q&f=false

But it is the impulse current:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4765373&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fstamp%2Fstamp.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4765373

The Steinmetz's works are there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Proteus_Steinmetz
S*

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 04:12:33 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 16:28:12 -0700, Larry Harson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Modern physics just babbles on like jimp with stupidities pretending
>>>>> somehow it all makes sense. It does not.
>>>>
>>>> Anything but!
>>>>
>>>> The quantum mechanical behaviour of photons confused scientists in the
>>>> 1920s, and still does so today. But the equations that model its
>>>> behaviour are incredibly accurate.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Larry.
>>>
>>> So a theory that simply relies on probability calculations using
>>> imaginary waves in nothing at all is "incredibly accurate" science?
>>
>> Nope, but since that is not what electromagnetic theory is, your
>> question is irrelevant to the discussion.
>>
>> <snip confused babbling>
>
> jimp as usual YOUR statements are totally irrelevant to ANY discussion.

As usual your statements are rambling babble.

>
> Here, let me help you. See that quote above that you put in YOUR post it
> was Larry bringing up QM as "incredibly accurate". Given how few real
> problems it can calculate I take issue with that. Interesting theory that
> predicted many things that nothing did before, for sure, but "incredibly
> accurate"? I don't think so.

Yep, you don't think.

> And YOU claimed all of EM was totally understood beyond any doubt. So I
> ask you to explain diffraction of light. You don't even give me a correct
> EM explanation let alone one that totally fits reality! All you ever do
> is "snip babble" to make yourself feel superior but never actually supply
> any information to back up such claims.

Not my job to educate you.

If that is what you want, send a cashiers check to get started.

> Either join the conversation or just shut up.

Science isn't a conversation.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> napisa? w wiadomo?ci

> news:Xaaht.36126$TG3....@newsfe04.iad...
>>
>> This thread was started with bold statements about how much was known
>> about electromagnetics and I pointed out that nobody has a clue what even
>> light is!
>
> Everybody (in scientist area) know:
> Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, "On the identity of the vibrations of light with
> electrical currents," Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34, 1867, p. 287-301

Again with the ancient history.

Try something written at least early to mid 20th Century and after 1910, idiot.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci

> news:jg9d5a-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> Could you lists the scientists who developed the EM waves theory?
>>
>> For a modern view of electromagnetic radiation, start with Lorentz and
>> Einstein.
>
> Fresnel, Maxwell, Heaviside, Hertz, A.H. Lorentz and Einstein "need" the
> aether to propagate the light waves.

No they didn't.

> They assumed that the aether is like a dielectric.

No they didn't.

> On the other hand Faraday, L. Lorenz, Marconi/Tesla and Dirac need the
> "Electron sea" as the medium.

No they didn't.

> The "modern view of electromagnetic radiation" is: "EM waves are solutions
> of Maxwell's equations, which are the fundamental equations of
> electrodynamics. EM waves require no medium, they can travel through empty
> space".

Maxwell's equations are an appoximation much like Newton's laws of motion.

Try quantum electrodynamics.

> I am asking who discovered such EM waves?

Which EM waves?

Heinrich Hertz discovered what we would call radio.

William Herschel discovered infrared.

Johann Wilhelm Ritter discovered ultraviolet.

Wilhelm Rontgen discovered X-rays.

Paul Villard discovered gamma rays.


--
Jim Pennino

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/4/2013 5:54 PM, benj wrote:
..

> Quantum fields follow solution of the wave equation. Seems significant,
> no?

And wave packets follow trajectories of
point particles. You always can find back
something of the older, obsolete theories.

> If a "quantum vacuum" isn't "nothing" then what is it?

It is so complicated that it is still not
known! (See Haag's theorem.)

> So "incredibly accurate" is relative? OK. I'll buy that.

I think both "incredibly" and "accurate"
separately are relative. Although it all might
depend on your point of view, of course. (But
don't quote me on that! ;) )

> Larry said that QM calculations were "incredibly accurate". Don't you
> guys read? Jos I don't have to tell you what kind of "assumptions" are
> made to create those "incredibly accurate" calculations! You already know
> that.

I cannot follow you. The Lamb shift, the
anomalous magnetic moment, the prediction
of the positron, those would be examples
of accurate results that only QFT can give
you. But it's unclear to me what the
"assumptions" are that you object to..

...
>> .. But wave mechanics does not explain the outcome of

>> real experiments so in that case you would have a point in challenging
>> it. (It simply is wrong.)
>
> So your argument is that if a certain mathematical mechanics (lets be
> honest here) "sort of" produce results close enough to a few actual
> experiments, we can simply extend the whole concept to a world view by

Huh??! I was just saying that wave mechanics
is wrong! Everyone knows that, even Erwin
Schrodinger himself had to (grudgingly) admit
that.

...

>> For a quantum field, with decoherence of simultaneous results, what
>> objection do you still see? (Is it the obvious one that you feel uneasy
>> with other co-existing alternatives?!)
>
> What objections do I see? What is a "quantum field"?

If you don't know, then you have no knowledge
of contemporary physics. Any criticism coming
from you is then as useless as criticizing
Ptolemy's epicycles or the alchemists and the
flogiston theory. You may criticize them, benj,
but we already knew it!

> What is "decoherence"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

It is the explanation why quantum mechanics can
work without invoking mysticism (no "throwing of
dice", no mysterious "collapse" or "conscious
observer" needed, or "observer/observed duality".)

..

> I suggest that just a tiny bit less exuberance would be
> far more realistic.

For you it certainly would! If you do not know
what quantum field theory is you should not
try to discuss it.

--
Jos

[benj]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 00:56:55 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
..
>> I suggest that just a tiny bit less exuberance would be far more
>> realistic.
>
> For you it certainly would! If you do not know what quantum field theory
> is you should not try to discuss it.

You are right, Jos, I really don't understand a thing about this quantum
theory "science by jargon" thing. So which "quantum theory" do you
support today? "FTL action at a distance" or "hidden variables"?

By the way, the theory of epicycles is actually correct (used in most
planetariums) and alchemy was shown to be real ages ago and even low
energy alchemy has been demonstrated. But I won't try to discuss it.

[benj]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 16:59:55 +0000, jimp wrote:

>> Either join the conversation or just shut up.
>
> Science isn't a conversation.

Right, in your mind it's just everyone worshiping every word you utter
and accepting it without question or be accused of speaking "insane
babble". Glad we got that settled.

[benj]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 17:13:12 +0000, jimp wrote:

> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:

<snip jimp insane babble>

> No they didn't.

> No they didn't.

> No they didn't.


Well that settles it S*, You are insane and everything you say is wrong!
If you can't believe jimp, who can you believe?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Speaking of insane babble...

If I say, for example, that X-rays are EM radiation, there is no need for
me or anyone else to "prove" it as the fact was proven long ago and can
be found in any text book on the subject.





--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Try a modern text book on the subject.

Oh, I forgot, according to you every scientist, every university, every
writer, and every publisher on the planet is part of a giant conspiracy
to suppress the "truth".



--
Jim Pennino

[Szczepan Bialek]

<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci

news:86sf5a-...@mail.specsol.com...

> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>
>
>> The "modern view of electromagnetic radiation" is: "EM waves are
>> solutions
>> of Maxwell's equations, which are the fundamental equations of
>> electrodynamics. EM waves require no medium, they can travel through
>> empty
>> space".
>
>

>> I am asking who discovered such EM waves?
>
> Which EM waves?

That: "EM waves require no medium, they can travel through empty space".

>

> Heinrich Hertz discovered what we would call radio.
>
> William Herschel discovered infrared.
>
> Johann Wilhelm Ritter discovered ultraviolet.
>
> Wilhelm Rontgen discovered X-rays.
>
> Paul Villard discovered gamma rays.

But the issue is if they need medium.
I have found that it was C.P. Steinmetz who do not need medium:
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space, McGraw, 1923.

It is in Lecture 2 point B.

It seems that all teachers are the fan of Steinmetz.
S*


>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

[Szczepan Bialek]

"Jos Bergervoet" <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> napisał w wiadomości
news:51859237$0$15963$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

>
> The Lamb shift, the
> anomalous magnetic moment, the prediction
> of the positron, those would be examples
> of accurate results that only QFT can give
> you.

Positron is the joke (in Dirac opinion):
"If we accept the view of complete symmetry between positive and nega-tive
electric charge so far as concerns the fundamental laws of Nature, wemust
regard it rather as an accident that the Earth (and presumably thewhole
solar system), contains a preponderance of negative electrons andpositive
protons. It is quite possible that for some of the stars it is the otherway
about, these stars being built up mainly of positrons and negative pro-tons.
In fact, there may be half the stars of each kind. The two kinds of
starswould both show exactly the same spectra, and there would be no wayof
distinguishing them by present astronomical methods."
From: http://pl.scribd.com/doc/5601598/Dirac-Nobel-Lecture
S*

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/5/2013 4:31 AM, benj wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 00:56:55 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> ..
>>> I suggest that just a tiny bit less exuberance would be far more
>>> realistic.
>>
>> For you it certainly would! If you do not know what quantum field theory
>> is you should not try to discuss it.
>
> You are right, Jos, I really don't understand a thing about this quantum
> theory

OK. (I would have preferred to be wrong, of
course..)

> "science by jargon" thing.

"Mathematics above undergraduate level" is
your definition of "jargon?" Or is it just
"what benj cannot understand"?!

Is the 2nd definition less restricted than
the 1st one? (Again, I hope not, of course..)

> By the way, the theory of epicycles is actually correct

It's criticized, however, for its unnecessary
complexity. The same cannot be said of quantum
field theory since there is no simpler theory
that gives correct results.

> .. and alchemy was shown to be real ages ago and even low

> energy alchemy has been demonstrated. But I won't try to discuss it.

Oops, now you tried it anyway! You're a bit
careless today, benj..

Alchemy may have given some correct results and
also lots of failed ones. So it was not a very
reliable theory and should be criticized for that.

As I said, it is already known that previous
theories have shortcomings. Needless to discuss
those. And you don't want to discuss the current
theory, nor do you even want to know what it is!
Galileo in his time already met this attitude.

You would have been a perfect Cardinal, benj,
maybe even promoted to inquisitor!

--
Jos

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/5/2013 5:18 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
..

>> If you can't believe jimp, who can you believe?
>
> Try a modern text book on the subject.
>
> Oh, I forgot, according to you every scientist, every university, every
> writer, and every publisher on the planet is part of a giant conspiracy
> to suppress the "truth".

benj is right if you use his definition:
everything above undergraduate level (or
everything benj cannot understand, take
your pick) cannot be truth, but is "jargon".

And indeed, universities try to eliminate
naive, over-simplified concepts from the
students' heads. They fight against the
"truth" that benj cherishes so much! It's
all over the world. Books are also used for
this purpose. Don't you see the pattern?!

--
Jos

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> "Jos Bergervoet" <jos.ber...@xs4all.nl> napisa? w wiadomo?ci

> news:51859237$0$15963$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> The Lamb shift, the
>> anomalous magnetic moment, the prediction
>> of the positron, those would be examples
>> of accurate results that only QFT can give
>> you.
>
> Positron is the joke (in Dirac opinion):

That isn't what Dirac said, moron.

<snip quote that Szczepan can't understand>



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa? w wiadomo?ci

> news:86sf5a-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> Szczepan Bialek <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> The "modern view of electromagnetic radiation" is: "EM waves are
>>> solutions
>>> of Maxwell's equations, which are the fundamental equations of
>>> electrodynamics. EM waves require no medium, they can travel through
>>> empty
>>> space".
>>
>>
>>> I am asking who discovered such EM waves?
>>
>> Which EM waves?
>
> That: "EM waves require no medium, they can travel through empty space".

See below.

>>
>
>> Heinrich Hertz discovered what we would call radio.
>>
>> William Herschel discovered infrared.
>>
>> Johann Wilhelm Ritter discovered ultraviolet.
>>
>> Wilhelm Rontgen discovered X-rays.
>>
>> Paul Villard discovered gamma rays.
>
> But the issue is if they need medium.

No it isn't, that was settled long ago; electromagnetic radiation does
not need a medium.

> I have found that it was C.P. Steinmetz who do not need medium:
> Four Lectures on Relativity and Space, McGraw, 1923.

Keep going and you might get to modern theror.

> It is in Lecture 2 point B.
>
> It seems that all teachers are the fan of Steinmetz.

In reality teachers teach modern theory, not the musing from the 19th
Century that proved to be wrong.


--
Jim Pennino

[benj]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:16:42 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> As I said, it is already known that previous theories have shortcomings.
> Needless to discuss those. And you don't want to discuss the current
> theory, nor do you even want to know what it is! Galileo in his time
> already met this attitude.

Ah, so "best theory so far" is good enough for you? Most of us aim a bit
higher.

> You would have been a perfect Cardinal, benj, maybe even promoted to
> inquisitor!

I am thinking that a wee taste 'O the stake might get you to repent and
give up on heresy... Oh wait. *I'm* the one spouting heresy here and YOU
represent the Wholey Universal Church of Physics!

[benj]

So jimp are x-rays very short wavelength radio waves as in all the
textbooks of long ago or are they some kind of "particle" called
"photons" as in atomic physics?

[benj]

But then one always has to ask "who writes the books" which is a
variation on the Latin classic "who benefits?" [cui bono]

Clearly some sort of huge conspiracy is underway to suppress truth. One
day soon I may get my GED and finally understand trig and algebra and
when I do you clowns had just better "look out!" But I have no worries,
because once the huge conspiracy is proven, all of you apes will deny to
a man that you ever said there wasn't one. "Everybody knows about the big
conspiracy!" You guys are a hoot!

[benj]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 16:59:47 +0000, jimp wrote:

>> But the issue is if they need medium.
>
> No it isn't, that was settled long ago; electromagnetic radiation does
> not need a medium.

And apparently you haven't noticed that words actually mean things and by
the above statement you are asserting that electromagnetic radiation is
particles and not waves.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:16:42 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>
>> As I said, it is already known that previous theories have shortcomings.
>> Needless to discuss those. And you don't want to discuss the current
>> theory, nor do you even want to know what it is! Galileo in his time
>> already met this attitude.
>
> Ah, so "best theory so far" is good enough for you? Most of us aim a bit
> higher.

Yeah, right.

To "aim a bit higher" you first have to understand the current state so
you have a point of reference to start from, which obviously you don't.

>> You would have been a perfect Cardinal, benj, maybe even promoted to
>> inquisitor!
>
> I am thinking that a wee taste 'O the stake might get you to repent and
> give up on heresy... Oh wait. *I'm* the one spouting heresy here and YOU
> represent the Wholey Universal Church of Physics!

"Wholey Universal Church of Physics" is illiterate kook babble.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> So jimp are x-rays very short wavelength radio waves as in all the
> textbooks of long ago or are they some kind of "particle" called
> "photons" as in atomic physics?

Yes, but not "as in atomic physics", as in quantum electrodynamics.

If you had read and understood any modern texts you would know that.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> But then one always has to ask "who writes the books" which is a
> variation on the Latin classic "who benefits?" [cui bono]
>
> Clearly some sort of huge conspiracy is underway to suppress truth. One
> day soon I may get my GED and finally understand trig and algebra and
> when I do you clowns had just better "look out!" But I have no worries,
> because once the huge conspiracy is proven, all of you apes will deny to
> a man that you ever said there wasn't one. "Everybody knows about the big
> conspiracy!" You guys are a hoot!

Ah, yes, every scientist, teacher, author, university, and publishing
house on the planet are all in a giant conspiracy to prevent benj from
learning the "truth".






--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

No, I am not, kook boy, and that you come to such a conclusion just
demonstrates your utter ignorance.



--
Jim Pennino

[benj]

Then why do you worship there? When you find yourself in a hole, the
first thing, jimp, is to stop digging.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:54:53 +0000, jimp wrote:

<snip>

>> "Wholey Universal Church of Physics" is illiterate kook babble.
>
> Then why do you worship there?

More kook babble.

The only one that seems to be involved in "worship" is you.

> When you find yourself in a hole, the
> first thing, jimp, is to stop digging.

You mean the hole of idiotic kook babble about worship and world wide
conspiracies to hide the "truth" of elecromagnetic radiation?



--
Jim Pennino

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/6/2013 9:43 PM, benj wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:16:42 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>
>> As I said, it is already known that previous theories have shortcomings.
>> Needless to discuss those. And you don't want to discuss the current
>> theory, nor do you even want to know what it is! Galileo in his time
>> already met this attitude.
>
> Ah, so "best theory so far" is good enough for you?

Where was that stated?! I merely speak of
the "current theory" and the only credit I
give it is that it's more accurate than
previous theories (at the cost of also
being more complex).

> Most of us aim a bit higher.

Some of you are hiding that very well..

--
Jos

[benj]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 16:59:47 +0000, jimp wrote:

>> But the issue is if they need medium.
>
> No it isn't, that was settled long ago; electromagnetic radiation does
> not need a medium.

[benj]

Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!

Same old yappy dog. But somehow you still have to go look to see what
he's yapping about before you tell him to shut up!

Waves in "nothing at all"! Bwahahaha! Really "modern" physics there jimp!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:14:51 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 May 2013 19:54:53 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> "Wholey Universal Church of Physics" is illiterate kook babble.
>>>
>>> Then why do you worship there?
>>
>> More kook babble.
>>
>> The only one that seems to be involved in "worship" is you.
>>
>>> When you find yourself in a hole, the
>>> first thing, jimp, is to stop digging.
>>
>> You mean the hole of idiotic kook babble about worship and world wide
>> conspiracies to hide the "truth" of elecromagnetic radiation?
>
> Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!
>
> Same old yappy dog. But somehow you still have to go look to see what
> he's yapping about before you tell him to shut up!

You seem to get really upset when faced with the reality that every
scientist, every author, every teacher, every university, every publisher,
and every government on the planet would have to be in your imagined
conspiracy to keep the "truth" from you.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Apparently you are having acid flash backs and posted this twice.

Here's the response again:

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/6/2013 9:52 PM, benj wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:35:07 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2013 5:18 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> ..
>>>> If you can't believe jimp, who can you believe?
>>>
>>> Try a modern text book on the subject.
>>>
>>> Oh, I forgot, according to you every scientist, every university, every
>>> writer, and every publisher on the planet is part of a giant conspiracy
>>> to suppress the "truth".
>>
>> benj is right if you use his definition:
>> everything above undergraduate level (or everything benj cannot
>> understand, take your pick) cannot be truth, but is "jargon".
>>
>> And indeed, universities try to eliminate naive, over-simplified
>> concepts from the students' heads. They fight against the "truth" that
>> benj cherishes so much! It's all over the world. Books are also used for
>> this purpose. Don't you see the pattern?!
>
> But then one always has to ask "who writes the books"

You could have asked "who wrote the
tables of multiplication". But in that
case you probably could see for yourself
that they were right.

With more advanced theories this is still
possible (with somewhat more effort). You
can also see then that a lot of what is
written is nonsense (especially in
journals, less often in books). But it
does take more effort to see, if things
are above undergraduate level.

In fact it is wiser to distrust all recent
theories than to accept them all
unconditionally. Even better is to accept
only those of which you can see that they
are true. If that is out of reach, then
the choice you are making is actually the
wisest, benj!

--
Jos

[benj]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 16:37:30 +0000, jimp yapped:

>> Same old yappy dog. But somehow you still have to go look to see what
>> he's yapping about before you tell him to shut up!
>
> You seem to get really upset when faced with the reality that every
> scientist, every author, every teacher, every university, every
> publisher,
> and every government on the planet would have to be in your imagined
> conspiracy to keep the "truth" from you.

jimp I don't get upset. It's all an act or a misinterpretation by you (as
usual in your life)

Perhaps you need to investigate just WHO "every government on the
planet" (almost) answers to. Oh wait, that would take some reading and
thinking! Ok, that's out.

Those in power do not like people they do not own. Usually they kill them
if they become too big a pain in the butt.

[benj]

Actually it's my newsreader "Pan" that is having acid flashbacks. I can't
help it. It doesn't follow threads well.

And I see you still answer all scientific questions with your "proof"
that only consists of calling the questioner ignorant or insane. Great
science there jimp. Do you actually know any science, jimp? Not much
demonstration of that here.

So is electromagnetic radiation particles or waves? We already have your
"stooopid" response, but you might try responding to the actual
questions.

Waves by DEFINITION require a medium! Waves with no medium is insane
babble! There is NO way around that.

[benj]

Jos you kill me! You never read what anybody says, you make up your own
version, then spice it with a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions and
then dismiss it all with a conclusion that the person voicing the
statement is ignorant and uneducated since their opinion differs somewhat
from what everybody "knows" is the truth!

The bottom line it that it's virtually impossible to hold a reasonable
discussion with you. But that doesn't matter.

PS. I've actually studied graduate level QM under Yang and Mills which is
why I'm so ignorant of the subject.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> Perhaps you need to investigate just WHO "every government on the
> planet" (almost) answers to. Oh wait, that would take some reading and
> thinking! Ok, that's out.

Right, there is some secret organization controlling the governments
of Earth to ensure the "truth" about electromagnetic radiation is
surpressed, and in particular the existence of an aether.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 16:40:07 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 May 2013 16:59:47 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But the issue is if they need medium.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't, that was settled long ago; electromagnetic radiation does
>>>> not need a medium.
>>>
>>> And apparently you haven't noticed that words actually mean things and
>>> by the above statement you are asserting that electromagnetic radiation
>>> is particles and not waves.
>>
>> Apparently you are having acid flash backs and posted this twice.
>>
>> Here's the response again:
>>
>> No, I am not, kook boy, and that you come to such a conclusion just
>> demonstrates your utter ignorance.
>
> Actually it's my newsreader "Pan" that is having acid flashbacks. I can't
> help it. It doesn't follow threads well.
>
> And I see you still answer all scientific questions with your "proof"
> that only consists of calling the questioner ignorant or insane. Great
> science there jimp. Do you actually know any science, jimp? Not much
> demonstration of that here.

Again, I have no need to prove that which can be found in just about
any textbook.

> So is electromagnetic radiation particles or waves? We already have your
> "stooopid" response, but you might try responding to the actual
> questions.

The answer is yes.

> Waves by DEFINITION require a medium! Waves with no medium is insane
> babble! There is NO way around that.

Just a further demonstration of you ignorance.

I would suggest reading a modern text of two but since you believe there
is a giant conspiracy of every teacher, scientist, writer, publishing
house, college, university, and government on the planet to suprress
the "truth" about the existence of an aether, it would be pointless.



--
Jim Pennino

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/8/2013 6:06 AM, benj wrote:
>
>>> But then one always has to ask "who writes the books"
>>
>> You could have asked "who wrote the tables of multiplication". But in
>> that case you probably could see for yourself that they were right.
>>
>> With more advanced theories this is still possible (with somewhat more
>> effort). You can also see then that a lot of what is written is nonsense
>> (especially in journals, less often in books). But it does take more
>> effort to see, if things are above undergraduate level.
>>
>> In fact it is wiser to distrust all recent theories than to accept them
>> all unconditionally. Even better is to accept only those of which you
>> can see that they are true. If that is out of reach, then the choice you
>> are making is actually the wisest, benj!
>
> Jos you kill me! You never read what anybody says,

Most of it is nonsense, that's what I wrote!
Don't you read my text at all?! I read "what
anybody says" but it has no value. To find the
truth I use my own logic (together with some
things I read that *do* make sense).

> you make up your own
> version, then spice it with a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions

But, ehh.. in this case they were substantiated,
weren't they, benj?

> and
> then dismiss it all with a conclusion that the person voicing the
> statement is ignorant

Junk is junk..

> The bottom line it that it's virtually impossible to hold a reasonable
> discussion with you.

Typo?! Impossible to hold an UNreasonable
discussion, you must mean! Because I ignore
nonsense.

> ...

> PS. I've actually studied graduate level QM under Yang and Mills which is
> why I'm so ignorant of the subject.

You chose the wisest path (for you), as I
explained!

--
Jos

[Szczepan Bialek]

<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:nsvo5a-...@mail.specsol.com...

The aether as a mystery substance is abadonded in science from the Faraday's
time.
Existence of the electromagnetic induction is proved.

But the light and the radio waves are the radiation not the induction.
The above "truth" is not supresed. It is only a litlle difficult to
understand.

The near field is the induction: "As an example of such an effect, power is
transferred across space in a common transformer or metal detector by means
of near-field phenomena (in this case inductive coupling), in a strictly
"short-range" effect (i.e., the range within one wavelength of the signal)."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field

The far field is not the induction.
It is the radiation.
There are many theories of radiation. Which one is the correct?
S*

[Larry Harson]

I don't believe you! ;)

Regards, Larry Harson

[benj]

On Sun, 05 May 2013 10:16:42 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> As I said, it is already known that previous theories have shortcomings.
> Needless to discuss those. And you don't want to discuss the current
> theory, nor do you even want to know what it is! Galileo in his time
> already met this attitude.

Ah, so "best theory so far" is good enough for you? Most of us aim a bit
higher.

[benj]

OF course you don't Larry. Like so many here "belief" is far more
important to you than science which is what keeps you from learning the
truth.

[benj]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:16:00 +0000, jimp wrote:

>> So is electromagnetic radiation particles or waves? We already have
>> your "stooopid" response, but you might try responding to the actual
>> questions.
>
> The answer is yes.
>
>> Waves by DEFINITION require a medium! Waves with no medium is insane
>> babble! There is NO way around that.
>
> Just a further demonstration of you ignorance.

Give us a treatise on how properties can exist independent of the thing
possessing the properties. Makes total sense...to nobody.

The above is total proof of insane jimp babble making no logical sense.
It seems to make sense to him though. He should give others in the ward a
chance at the ward computer.

> I would suggest reading a modern text of two but since you believe there
> is a giant conspiracy of every teacher, scientist, writer, publishing
> house, college, university, and government on the planet to suprress the
> "truth" about the existence of an aether, it would be pointless.

So why would you suggest I do something "pointless"? Obviously you are
insane.

What is pointless is any attempt at intelligent conversation with you.

[benj]

I don't think it's so secret, jimp!

[benj]

The Jefimenko causal equations of induction and radiation are the correct
ones that explain it all.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Right, that's why everytime I tell you to go read a book on a subject
you respond with a long winded and babbling diatribe about secrets,
government suppression, and other such nonsense hiding the "truth".



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:16:00 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>>> So is electromagnetic radiation particles or waves? We already have
>>> your "stooopid" response, but you might try responding to the actual
>>> questions.
>>
>> The answer is yes.
>>
>>> Waves by DEFINITION require a medium! Waves with no medium is insane
>>> babble! There is NO way around that.
>>
>> Just a further demonstration of you ignorance.
>
> Give us a treatise on how properties can exist independent of the thing
> possessing the properties. Makes total sense...to nobody.

Go read a textbook; I'm not being payed to educate you or anyone else.

> The above is total proof of insane jimp babble making no logical sense.
> It seems to make sense to him though. He should give others in the ward a
> chance at the ward computer.

Don't know how to find textbooks or is it you don't know how to read or
is it you can't handle math beyond the high school level?

>> I would suggest reading a modern text of two but since you believe there
>> is a giant conspiracy of every teacher, scientist, writer, publishing
>> house, college, university, and government on the planet to suprress the
>> "truth" about the existence of an aether, it would be pointless.
>
> So why would you suggest I do something "pointless"? Obviously you are
> insane.

Just noting that you are a complete nut case demanding "proof" of things
found in common textbooks.




--
Jim Pennino

[benj]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:25:11 +0000, jimp wrote:

> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:11:35 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>
>>> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps you need to investigate just WHO "every government on the
>>>> planet" (almost) answers to. Oh wait, that would take some reading
>>>> and thinking! Ok, that's out.
>>>
>>> Right, there is some secret organization controlling the governments
>>> of Earth to ensure the "truth" about electromagnetic radiation is
>>> surpressed, and in particular the existence of an aether.
>>
>> I don't think it's so secret, jimp!
>
> Right, that's why everytime I tell you to go read a book on a subject
> you respond with a long winded and babbling diatribe about secrets,
> government suppression, and other such nonsense hiding the "truth".

Only in your addled twisted kooky imagination, jimp.
If you could understand what people are saying it wouldn't seem like
"babble" to you.

[benj]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 18:30:02 +0000, jimp wrote:

> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>> So why would you suggest I do something "pointless"? Obviously you are
>> insane.
>
> Just noting that you are a complete nut case demanding "proof" of things
> found in common textbooks.

So your idea is that everything found in textbooks is obviously always
100 percent correct and beyond question. And anyone who questions any
"official" dogma is "insane". Got it.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Lunatic babble always sounds good to the babbling lunatic.

It is always everybody else's fault they are not understood.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Nope, someone that is convinced there is some conspiracy afoot to
prevent them from learning the "truth" and constantly demanding "proof"
for things readily found in textbooks and repeatedly uses phrases like
"official dogma" is a kook.



--
Jim Pennino

[benj]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:12:28 +0000, jimp wrote:

Snip usual jimp insane babble.

"... is a kook."

Heard it before. Give the other patients a chance at the computer...

[benj]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:08:36 +0000, jimp wrote:


> Lunatic babble always sounds good to the babbling lunatic.

> It is always everybody else's fault they are not understood.

We know these are your rules jimp. That's why you think you know it all
and everyone else is insane.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

It seems that benj is able to say in grown up words "I know you are but
what am I?".

Well, good for him.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Hmmm, you seem to run from the discussion every time it is pointed out
to you just how kooky your babble is.

Tell us again what contrails and HAARP are then enlighten us on the
world wide conspiracy to supress the "truth" of the existence of an
aether.





--
Jim Pennino

[Szczepan Bialek]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:uwwit.23049$pu.1...@newsfe12.iad...

> On Wed, 08 May 2013 10:19:33 +0200, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>

>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> napisa3 w wiadomo?ci

I do not know the Jefimenko ideas.
Can you write what is in "empty space" in Jefimenko world?
S*
>
>
>

[benj]

Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap.

Fredifizicks just handed you your ass in sci.physics over aether and you
are too dumb to even know when you are stupid!

There is no discussion here with you, so there is nothing to run from.
Just a yappy lap dog.

[benj]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:47:15 +0000, jimp wrote:

> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:08:36 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Lunatic babble always sounds good to the babbling lunatic.
>>
>>> It is always everybody else's fault they are not understood.
>>
>> We know these are your rules jimp. That's why you think you know it all
>> and everyone else is insane.

<snip insane jimp babble unread>

[benj]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:15:14 +0200, Szczepan Bialek wrote:

>>> The far field is not the induction.
>>> It is the radiation.
>>> There are many theories of radiation. Which one is the correct?
>>> S*
>>
>> The Jefimenko causal equations of induction and radiation are the
>> correct ones that explain it all.
>
> I do not know the Jefimenko ideas.
> Can you write what is in "empty space" in Jefimenko world?
> S*

Jefimenko deals with Maxwellian theory so there is assumed "something" in
empty space. He does often calculate the Maxwell "stress equation", But
jefimenko only examines the equations and does not speculate on what
exactly is being "stressed". He does have some interesting speculations
on fields as momentum transfers however.

[Szczepan Bialek]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> napisa� w wiadomo�ci

news:sgIit.2$3d...@newsfe22.iad...

> On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:15:14 +0200, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
>
>>>> The far field is not the induction.
>>>> It is the radiation.
>>>> There are many theories of radiation. Which one is the correct?
>>>> S*
>>>
>>> The Jefimenko causal equations of induction and radiation are the
>>> correct ones that explain it all.
>>
>> I do not know the Jefimenko ideas.
>> Can you write what is in "empty space" in Jefimenko world?
>> S*
>
> Jefimenko deals with Maxwellian theory so there is assumed "something" in
> empty space.

In Maxwellian theory in the space are the electric particless.

>He does often calculate the Maxwell "stress equation", But
> jefimenko only examines the equations and does not speculate on what
> exactly is being "stressed". He does have some interesting speculations
> on fields as momentum transfers however.

A Jefimenko speculations done after Maxwell are probably useless like the
Heaviside's.
We need to know what is "stressed".
S*

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/8/2013 7:59 PM, benj wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 04:29:08 -0700, Larry Harson wrote:

...

>>> PS. I've actually studied graduate level QM under Yang and Mills which
>>> is why I'm so ignorant of the subject.
>>
>> I don't believe you! ;)
>

> OF course you don't Larry.

Yes, I expected that, benj! Somehow I knew
Larry was once again not going to belief it.

> Like so many here "belief" is far more
> important to you than science

It's a sad thing. And if it just were some
scrutiny to beware of false ideas, then it
wouldn't be so bad. But here we have a case
where you, personally, are offering the
facts, to the benefit of this newsgroup!

People today are so ungrateful, benj..

--
Jos

[Jos Bergervoet]

On 5/9/2013 9:25 AM, benj wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 02:53:16 +0000, jimp wrote:
>> benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:12:28 +0000, jimp wrote:

...
..

>> Tell us again what contrails and HAARP are then enlighten us on the
>> world wide conspiracy to supress the "truth" of the existence of an
>> aether.
>
> Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap.
>
> Fredifizicks just handed you

..

Fred is now starting to cite people who
believe in SUSY, benj! It's unlikely
that we can still trust him.. They must
have done something to blackmail him!

You know how unscrupulous they are,
benj. Let's hope for the best, but I'm
beginning to fear there's nothing we
can do for Fred anymore now..

--
Jos

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

My, my, I must have hit a sore point with the kook boy.

Are you sure you don't want to tell us again what contrails and HAARP really

are then enlighten us on the world wide conspiracy to supress the "truth"

of the existence of an aether?




--
Jim Pennino

[benj]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:04:03 +0200, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

> Yes, I expected that, benj! Somehow I knew Larry was once again not
> going to belief it.
>
>> Like so many here "belief" is far more important to you than science
>
> It's a sad thing. And if it just were some scrutiny to beware of false
> ideas, then it wouldn't be so bad. But here we have a case where you,
> personally, are offering the facts, to the benefit of this newsgroup!
>
> People today are so ungrateful, benj..

You are correct. It's a lonely life being the only ones who understand
science. Luckily, you and I do not seem to be viable candidates for the
"smarter than Einstein" prize.