B.Feuerbacher - the new Thought Police
Y.Porat
addressed to me :
-----------
that is an excelent example and prove of a behaviour
> of a personal enemy. why has nothing in mind
> but to destroy Y.Porat
If you don't like that I point out your errors, there are two simple
ways out for you:
1) ignore my posts, or, even better:
2) leave sci.physics, learn some physics and realize that your ideas are
crap.
end of quote
--------------
the 1 and 2 is of feuerbacher.
now since Mr F was nominated to the thought police of this ng
i would like(first) to know who was nominating him for that Job?
you see now there is new thought police- this time from Germany!
(it seems that in the near past they where quite good at that Job....)
since Mr F is a respectable seniour scintist of that ng i have a poblem
which is either to obey him or not. there is no other choice
the second chice is to leave and learn some physics before daring writing
anything hear
now the question is : what should i learn that can be defined as the
proper physics that i am aloud to learn may be private lessons from him?
or may be from another voluntier (since i dont have much money for new or old
books)
now he saied that the book he got from me is crap
so that is another problem
because he might soon demand that my book should be burned at the street.
and may be a better 'final solusion' would be to put me in a gas chamber?
so i am realy confused about what should i do
the man is systematicaly on my vains
ant post that i send no matter what it is *and to whome*
he is the forst one to contradict it and to show that i am a crackpot
now if i am aknown crackpot and an incurable one than what is his
interest to sit on my back and prove again and again that i a m acrackpot
while i already admitted that i am a crackpot
but i thought that we live in a democratic world (not the one in crentral
Europ last midd century so even crackpots might say something
or may be it is a ng of only the establishment physics?
such as virtual photons and W bosons etc etc.
we saw lately how Mr F and Mr Frantz are doing marvelously
and brilliantlyin discussion virtual photons untill Frantz
got tired ans suggested to stop it (for a while....)
and now Mr F and mr Frantz suggested that ther is even
a EM wave with the frequency of (listen carefully)
one cycle *per year*!! may be they are going to recrute the
thought police and even find it !!.
it is while the earth is completing one cycle around the sun
i didnt know that this is the physics that i must learn.
now in short my question is what should i do ?
ps the question is not for Mr F
not for Hemann
not for Varney
because we know in advance what is ther answers these people are not quite
creative their responses are always predicted, they can never surprise you
by anything so lpeae bypass the thought police and lend a hand
to a poor little crackpot who still thinks he lives in a *free world*
-------
TIA
Porat (the crackpot of the thought police)
--------------------
Franz Heymann
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:4e35159f.04040...@posting.google.com...
> i would like to show you a quote from feuerbacher
> addressed to me :
>
> -----------
> that is an excelent example and prove of a behaviour
> > of a personal enemy. why has nothing in mind
> > but to destroy Y.Porat
Will readers please note that everything above here was said by Porat,
in spite of the mangled attribution marks.
> If you don't like that I point out your errors, there are two simple
> ways out for you:
> 1) ignore my posts, or, even better:
> 2) leave sci.physics, learn some physics and realize that your ideas
are
> crap.
> end of quote
> the 1 and 2 is of feuerbacher.
They looked like eminently good pieces of advice for wilfully ignorant
people like you.
[snip the bleating]
Franz
Eric Gisse
> i would like to show you a quote from feuerbacher
> addressed to me :
>
> -----------
> that is an excelent example and prove of a behaviour
> > of a personal enemy. why has nothing in mind
> > but to destroy Y.Porat
<snip>
What, no link to understand context? Guess it doesn't matter. You are
now worthy of being destroyed.
Go Bjoern!
Y.Porat
Hi Frantzy
i had no boubt about what you are going to react because ..
may be you are one of the
*spititual teachers of Mr F*
iow
you are a little nazi as well with the same mentaltity.
but now as a super supervisor here
go on with you 'virtual patricles' discussion with Mr F
we would like to see some '*productive results of it*
and not just abundoning it at the mid way
btw anyone can see that discussion in my thread:
'the mass of the photon defined theorethically by Y.Porat'
you would see there as well the Heyman - Feuerbacher discovery of
A PHOTON WAVE (OR EM WAVE) WITH T E FREQUENCY OF ONE CYCLE PER..
year.
(the place to look for it acording to the two jeniouses is
'in the earth that is moving around the sun.'!so you know precisely
where to look for it. the thought police will have no difficulty in
doing it.
Heymann the whole scintific comunity is waiting breathelessly
that you will prove its existance.
you are alowed to recrute Mr F for that mission.
and you can go on declairing day and night that the photon is
massless.
(because no one can ever prove it though it is the physics that fits
his majesty.)
btw another question to you:
when was it that you got your Phd title?
------------------
Y.Porat
-----------
Y.Porat
just tell me in what method you intend to destroy me ?
say a gas chamber?
btw did you had some relatives in midd europ during the second world war
your mane sound fitting to that zone in Europ.and your suggestions
as well ??
----------
heil
Y.Porat
---------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> i would like to show you a quote from feuerbacher
> addressed to me :
>
> -----------
> that is an excelent example and prove of a behaviour
>
>>of a personal enemy. why has nothing in mind
>>but to destroy Y.Porat
>
>
> If you don't like that I point out your errors, there are two simple
> ways out for you:
> 1) ignore my posts, or, even better:
> 2) leave sci.physics, learn some physics and realize that your ideas are
> crap.
> end of quote
> --------------
> the 1 and 2 is of feuerbacher.
> now since Mr F was nominated to the thought police of this ng
Complete nonsense. As usual from you.
> i would like(first) to know who was nominating him for that Job?
No one. Stop attacking stupid straw men.
> you see now there is new thought police- this time from Germany!
> (it seems that in the near past they where quite good at that Job....)
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html>, number 31.
280 points now in total, including two other posts.
> since Mr F is a respectable seniour scintist of that ng i have a poblem
> which is either to obey him or not.
The two points above were suggestions, not commands. You aren't making
sense.
> there is no other choice
> the second chice is to leave and learn some physics before daring writing
> anything hear
Yes, that would really be quite nice. Unfortunately, you won't do that.
> now the question is : what should i learn that can be defined as the
> proper physics that i am aloud to learn may be private lessons from him?
For starters, you could try to learn basic newtonian physics,
electrodynamics, and a bit about measurement theory and logic. If you
have understood all that stuff, you can procede with Quantum Mechanics
and Special Relativity.
> or may be from another voluntier (since i dont have much money for new or old
> books)
> now he saied that the book he got from me is crap
Yes.
> so that is another problem
> because he might soon demand that my book should be burned at the street.
No. Why should I demand anything that strange? A great source of humour
would be lost to humankind.
> and may be a better 'final solusion' would be to put me in a gas chamber?
Stop attacking stupid straw men.
I never did anything personal against you. I only pointed out repeatedly
the flaws in your book and your thinking.
> so i am realy confused about what should i do
I would recommend following my advice 2 above,
In the light of the paranoia you display here, visiting a psychologists
would perhaps be a good idea, too.
> the man is systematicaly on my vains
Well, you systematically post crap...
> ant post that i send no matter what it is *and to whome*
> he is the forst one to contradict it and to show that i am a crackpot
Nice that you yourself can see this already.
> now if i am aknown crackpot and an incurable one than what is his
> interest to sit on my back and prove again and again that i a m acrackpot
My motivation is quite simple: you keep posting the same old crap, hence
I keep pointing out your errors. Cause and effect.
> while i already admitted that i am a crackpot
Thanks.
> but i thought that we live in a democratic world (not the one in crentral
> Europ last midd century so even crackpots might say something
Yes, you may say whatever you want. So what? Did I ever say you aren't
allowed to do this?
On the other hand, *you* keep whining that I answer your posts and tear
your arguments apart, and demand that I stop doing that. So *who* is the
thought police here? *Who* is against free speech?
> or may be it is a ng of only the establishment physics?
> such as virtual photons and W bosons etc etc.
It's a newsgroup where anyone can post anything he likes about physics.
And shouldn't whine like you when he is shown to be wrong.
> we saw lately how Mr F and Mr Frantz are doing marvelously
> and brilliantlyin discussion virtual photons untill Frantz
> got tired ans suggested to stop it (for a while....)
Your sarcasm is really boring.
> and now Mr F and mr Frantz suggested that ther is even
> a EM wave with the frequency of (listen carefully)
> one cycle *per year*!!
Yes. What's your problem with that?
> may be they are going to recrute the
> thought police and even find it !!.
A bit hard to do, don't you think?
> it is while the earth is completing one cycle around the sun
> i didnt know that this is the physics that i must learn.
Hint: that's basic electrodynamics. Maxwell's equations. Ever heard of them?
> now in short my question is what should i do ?
Learn some physics?
> ps the question is not for Mr F
Too late.
> not for Hemann
> not for Varney
> because we know in advance what is ther answers these people are not quite
> creative their responses are always predicted, they can never surprise you
Why do you want to be surprised? Why don't you simply follow the advice
to learn some basic physics?
> by anything so lpeae bypass the thought police and lend a hand
> to a poor little crackpot who still thinks he lives in a *free world*
You do. You live in a world where yuu are free to post your nonsense,
and everyone else is free to point out your errors.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Complete utter nonsense, as usual from you.
> iow
> you are a little nazi as well with the same mentaltity.
320 points and still counting...
> but now as a super supervisor here
> go on with you 'virtual patricles' discussion with Mr F
> we would like to see some '*productive results of it*
> and not just abundoning it at the mid way
If you didn't notice: Franz's thread about the HUP was essentially a
part of that discussion.
> btw anyone can see that discussion in my thread:
> 'the mass of the photon defined theorethically by Y.Porat'
>
> you would see there as well the Heyman - Feuerbacher discovery of
> A PHOTON WAVE (OR EM WAVE) WITH T E FREQUENCY OF ONE CYCLE PER..
> year
Not a "discovery" in the experimental sense. Simply a prediction of
Maxwell's equations. Ever heard of them?
> (the place to look for it acording to the two jeniouses is
> 'in the earth that is moving around the sun.'!so you know precisely
> where to look for it. the thought police will have no difficulty in
> doing it.
*In* the earth? What nonsense is this again? No one ever said that.
> Heymann the whole scintific comunity is waiting breathelessly
> that you will prove its existance.
Hint: nothing in experimental science is ever proven.
> you are alowed to recrute Mr F for that mission.
> and you can go on declairing day and night that the photon is
> massless.
What he "declared" was, more specifically: "the experimental results for
the photon mass are compatible with a mass of zero".
> (because no one can ever prove it though it is the physics that fits
> his majesty.)
Right. Again: experimental science can *never* prove *anything*.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
So you accuse Eric of being a Nazi, too, I see.
360 points and still counting.
Bye,
Bjoern
Grey Knight
> say a gas chamber?
> btw did you had some relatives in midd europ during the second world war
> your mane sound fitting to that zone in Europ.and your suggestions
> as well ??
> ----------
> heil
> Y.Porat
> ---------------
Godwin's Law, anyone?
Creighton Hogg
Does Godwin's Law apply when the person can't even consistently spell Nazi
right?
Eric Gisse
> fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > map...@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > i would like to show you a quote from feuerbacher
> > > addressed to me :
> > >
> > > -----------
> > > that is an excelent example and prove of a behaviour
> > > > of a personal enemy. why has nothing in mind
> > > > but to destroy Y.Porat
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > What, no link to understand context? Guess it doesn't matter. You are
> > now worthy of being destroyed.
> >
> > Go Bjoern!
> -----------------
> just tell me in what method you intend to destroy me ?
> say a gas chamber?
> btw did you had some relatives in midd europ during the second world war
> your mane sound fitting to that zone in Europ.and your suggestions
> as well ??
> ----------
> heil
> Y.Porat
> ---------------
My lineage is in the area of Norway, not Germany.
Its hump day and ive been called a Nazi. My day is complete and I
haven't even shown up for class yet!
bri...@encompasserve.org
>
>
> On 7 Apr 2004, Grey Knight wrote:
>
>> map...@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.04040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Does Godwin's Law apply when the person can't even consistently spell Nazi
> right?
To be pedantic, the answer is yes.
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
I don't see anything there that requires Nazi to be spelled correctly.
Note also that, in this form, Godwin's law is not falsifiable. No finite
thread or set of threads can serve as a counter-example. So we need
not reach the question of spelling to decide whether Godwin's law holds.
Since it is an observational (and self-referential in this case) fact
that any sub-thread involving Y.Porat is born dead, the corruption of
Godwin's law relating thread death with Nazi references is trivially
upheld.
John Briggs
Franz Heymann
Porat, you have really now lost all such marbles as you might once
have had. You should see a specialist.
Franz
Edward Green
Bravo. A logical tour-de-force. :-0
Y.Porat
Frantz
i dont take back any of myclimes against Mr F he is repossible
for his unhuman bahaviur
yet ley me tell you in addition to the above
that *you* inspired him with your wild and iresponsible behaviour
you were in a way some 'model of immitation'
so to some extend it is your responsibility
that this ng is deteriorating to zero contribution to the advance of scine
this ng becomes a parrots club, under your leadership and inspiration.
so go on discuss with Mr F about 'virtual photons'
btw can you list some examples in which virtual photons predicted
something *that was not precedented by experimental findings*
i just ask i realy dont know what the answer is.
--------------
Y.Porat
--------------
Y.Porat
yess definitly
he suggesteed to destroy me
you can add him to your nazi list to gether with all the others
that pop up now .
yet still that seems to be a slim list many of them are stil hiding
in their holes.
and there is anothwer long list of those who just 'sit on the fence'
to watch the game.
while they knoe well who is the sabotager parrot hear
and who is the one who tryes to innovate something.
--------------
Y.porat
----------------
Y.Porat
the young nazi croock snipped the parts
in which i told how he volonteered to send my book to someone else
and sent him only a part of my book wiht his malicious remarks
(while for a decent man sending only a part of a book while you
volunteered to do it and not informing the parties involved about it
is pure cheting)
he snipped my answer that
i sent the book to many people that none behaved like him
none called ir crap
and quite the opoposite:
most of them sayed it is interesting and innivative!
that part of our discussion disappered in this reply without an anser
from him.
i never hered about a precenent to such a behaviour
---------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
>
Bjoern Feuerbacher
So what? This was meant in the sense of "destroy his arguments". Sorry
for you that you are incapable of understand this.
> you can add him to your nazi list to gether with all the others
> that pop up now .
400 points and still counting...
> yet still that seems to be a slim list many of them are stil hiding
> in their holes.
> and there is anothwer long list of those who just 'sit on the fence'
> to watch the game.
> while they knoe well who is the sabotager parrot hear
> and who is the one who tryes to innovate something.
Porat, I'm ***STILL*** waiting for even ***ONE*** poster who supports
you. Where are all these people who admire you and your book?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Nothing of my behaviour was "unhuman".
You, however, continue to display how disturbed you are: writing hate
tirads as "response" to posts with lots of arguments, and showing your
paranoia by opening this thread. And, BTW, showing your hypocrisy by
calling *me* "thought police", whining that your "free speech" is
violated - and then demanding that *I* should stop answering your posts.
Such irony...
> yet ley me tell you in addition to the above
> that *you* inspired him with your wild and iresponsible behaviour
> you were in a way some 'model of immitation'
> so to some extend it is your responsibility
> that this ng is deteriorating to zero contribution to the advance of
> scine
> this ng becomes a parrots club, under your leadership and
> inspiration.
What a heap of bullshit.
> so go on discuss with Mr F about 'virtual photons'
>
> btw can you list some examples in which virtual photons predicted
> something *that was not precedented by experimental findings*
* Casimir effect
* Lamb shift
* anomalous magnetic moment of electron and muon
More?
> i just ask i realy dont know what the answer is.
Big surprise.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I snipped *NOTHING* in your post I answered here. Liar. You wrote that
in *another* post - and there, I didn't snip it, too. In contrast, I
pointed out that you misrepresent what happened, and gave a quote from
yourself that proves this.
And I see that you *still* continue to misrepresent what happened. Quote
time again... *YOU YOURSELF* said the following (message ID
<4e35159f.03112...@posting.google.com>):
"ok it seems that at last we got a reasonable formula:
so i alow you to get a *copy of Bjoerns book with his notes*
and you will get my book with my new notes."
So *YOU YOURSELF* said that *YOU YOURSELF* will send Michael your book.
It was *your* responsibility that Michael gets the whole book - not
mine. *MY* responsibility was only to send him my notes, as made clear
by the quote above.
Stop lying about what happened. Everyone can see clearly that you are
wrong, and that you continue to misrepresent what I did.
> (while for a decent man sending only a part of a book while you
> volunteered to do it and not informing the parties involved about it
> is pure cheting)
Stop lying about what happened.
> he snipped my answer that
> i sent the book to many people that none behaved like him
> none called ir crap
> and quite the opoposite:
> most of them sayed it is interesting and innivative!
I snipped ***NOTHING*** in your post I answered here. Stop lying.
You said that in *another* post - and there, I didn't snip it, too. In
contrast, I asked you there who these people were. You, as usual,
ignored the question and answered only with insults.
> that part of our discussion disappered in this reply without an anser
> from him.
You wrote that stuff in *another* post, I think even in another thread.
I see that you, as usual, make me responsible for *your* errors.
> i never hered about a precenent to such a behaviour
Well, then stop behaving in that way.
Bye,
Bjoern
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> btw can you list some examples in which virtual photons predicted
> something *that was not precedented by experimental findings*
> i just ask i realy dont know what the answer is.
Bhabha scattering
The magnetic moment of the muon
The Lamb shift.
Electroproduction of rho mesons
Ask for more if you need more.
Franz
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c50j5m$h55$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>>i would like to show you a quote from feuerbacher
> >>>addressed to me :
> >>>
> >>>-----------
> >>> that is an excelent example and prove of a behaviour
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>of a personal enemy. why has nothing in mind
> >>>>but to destroy Y.Porat
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If you don't like that I point out your errors, there are two simple
> >>>ways out for you:
> >>>1) ignore my posts, or, even better:
> >>>2) leave sci.physics, learn some physics and realize that your ideas are
> >>>crap.
> >>>end of quote
> >>>--------------
> >>>the 1 and 2 is of feuerbacher.
> >>>now since Mr F was nominated to the thought police of this ng
> >>
> >>Complete nonsense. As usual from you.
> >>sense.
> >>
> >>
> >> > there is no other choice
>
> >>>the second chice is to leave and learn some physics before daring writing
> >>>anything hear
> >>
> >>Yes, that would really be quite nice. Unfortunately, you won't do that.
to learn about virtual photons from you and Heymann
to learn from you
about an EM wave that has a frequancy of ..
one cycle per year?
lucky me that the idiot does nto deny that he is the copyrighter
of that photon wave!!
and i am suposed to learn from imbecils.
---------------
>
> I snipped *NOTHING* in your post I answered here. Liar. You wrote that
> in *another* post - and there, I didn't snip it, too. In contrast, I
> pointed out that you misrepresent what happened, and gave a quote from
> yourself that proves this.
>
> And I see that you *still* continue to misrepresent what happened. Quote
> time again... *YOU YOURSELF* said the following (message ID
> <4e35159f.03112...@posting.google.com>):
> "ok it seems that at last we got a reasonable formula:
> so i alow you to get a *copy of Bjoerns book with his notes*
> and you will get my book with my new notes."
little nazi 'Joeseff goebels'
you try to obfuscate that you did something that never happened in the
histoty of uman behaviour
a person was addressing me and asking to get my book:
you jumped in between and saied - no i will sent it ti A
with my negative remarks
i ask the readeres
have you ever in histoty of the unman race haered about such a eahviour?
now the quuote above sayes:
i alow you to get a copy of Bjoerns book (actually my book y.p)
with his notes'
did i ever mensioned there a posibility of sending only a part of that book?
did any decent man will get into consideration a possibility
of sending
only a part of the book ?
while he jumped in and volunteered to send the book?
with hostile remarks without informing the author ' i sent only
a part of the book now you go on send all the complete book'?
either me and Moroney assumed that the exemplar you sent is a complete
one as a decent man would do .
the fact was therefore, that neither me nor Moroney were not aware
about what was missing there
and after all that
little Joeseff Goebels turnes me to be the lier
ok you are doing very well as a pupil of Joeseff Goebels.
and an imbecil scintist.
---------------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
>
Michael Moroney
>-----------------
>just tell me in what method you intend to destroy me ?
>say a gas chamber?
>btw did you had some relatives in midd europ during the second world war
>your mane sound fitting to that zone in Europ.and your suggestions
>as well ??
>----------
>heil
>Y.Porat
>---------------
Shame, shame, Porat.
You do realize that any 'new' theory in science is going to be dissected,
criticized, picked apart etc., especially if it flies in the face of what
is commonly accepted. This is the review process, and it is why science
as we know it works. Dozens, hundreds, thousands of minds look for any
weaknesses, and any theory that survives all this is likely going to be
close to the truth. Bjoern has done this with your ideas, even though
so many others dismiss you as a 'kook'. You should be thankful for his
significant efforts (I've been reading all his comments of your book!)
instead you attack him with ad hominems.
BTW, Godwin's Law of Usenet. You were first to mention Nazis, you
automatically lose the discussion.
--
-Mike
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Oh, hello back, Michael! Nice to see you again here!
And thanks for your support, BTW... although I have to admit that I'm
also guilty a bit that the posts between Porat and me degraded into an
exchange of insults - well, mainly on his side)
Which pages from Porat's book are you missing? I can copy them, too, and
send them to you, if you want. Sorry that I didn't copy everything - but
as I said, I expected that he will send you his whole book, too! (he
keeps denying this - although I quoted him verbatim where he said
exactly this!)
Happy Easter!
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c538kc$r6k$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>>>>the second chice is to leave and learn some physics before daring writing
>>>>>anything hear
>>>>
>>>>Yes, that would really be quite nice. Unfortunately, you won't do that.
>
> ---------------------
> to learn about virtual photons from you and Heymann
> to learn from you
> about an EM wave that has a frequancy of ..
> one cycle per year?
I didn't say that you should learn from us necessarily. There are lots
of good books on physics out there. Try looking here, e.g.:
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/booklist.html>
Hey, in light of the fact that I recommended you to *leave* the
newsgroup and *then* learn some physics, it is *obvious* that I didn't
mean that you should learn physics from Franz and me!!!
> lucky me that the idiot does nto deny that he is the copyrighter
> of that photon wave!!
> and i am suposed to learn from imbecils.
Why are we "imbeciles", just because we say that
1) virtual photons
2) an electromagnetic wave with a frequency of 1/1 year
exist?
>>I snipped *NOTHING* in your post I answered here. Liar. You wrote that
>>in *another* post - and there, I didn't snip it, too.
No apology for that lie?
>>In contrast, I
>>pointed out that you misrepresent what happened, and gave a quote from
>>yourself that proves this.
>>
>>And I see that you *still* continue to misrepresent what happened. Quote
>> time again... *YOU YOURSELF* said the following (message ID
>><4e35159f.03112...@posting.google.com>):
>>"ok it seems that at last we got a reasonable formula:
>>so i alow you to get a *copy of Bjoerns book with his notes*
>>and you will get my book with my new notes."
>
> -----------------
> little nazi 'Joeseff goebels'
I think you are now at least at 440 points, probably more.
> you try to obfuscate that you did something that never happened in the
> histoty of uman behaviour
Oh, giving a quote from you yourself which disproves what you claim is
"obfuscating"? I would call that "clarifying" - but who am I?
> a person was addressing me and asking to get my book:
> you jumped in between and saied - no i will sent it ti A
> with my negative remarks
I did *never* say that you should *not* send it, IIRC. My comments were
intended as a *supplement*, nothing more.
> i ask the readeres
> have you ever in histoty of the unman race haered about such a eahviour?
Stop misrepresenting what happened.
Lurkers: you are free to go the the message with the ID given above,
look at the whole thread and see what *really* happened and *who* is
misrepresenting here what happened. Please notice, too, that Porat, in
contrast to me, didn't bother to provide quotes and links to back up his
claims...
> now the quuote above sayes:
> i alow you to get a copy of Bjoerns book (actually my book y.p)
> with his notes'
> did i ever mensioned there a posibility of sending only a part of that book?
Well, since you said that you would send your book, too, I simply saw no
need to send copies of *all* your book. Sorry for you if you don't
understand that simple logic.
> did any decent man will get into consideration a possibility
> of sending only a part of the book ?
> while he jumped in and volunteered to send the book?
Yes - since you said that you will send your book, too.
Don't blame the responsibility for your failure to do this on me now!
> with hostile remarks
No - corrections.
> without informing the author i sent only
> a part of the book now you go on send all the complete book'?
You said yourself that you will send the book. So why on earth should I
have informed you additionally????????
> either me and Moroney assumed that the exemplar you sent is a complete
> one as a decent man would do .
You said yourself that you will send the book. Why didn't you do that?
> the fact was therefore, that neither me nor Moroney were not aware
> about what was missing there
Since you said yourself that you will send your book, and I expected you
to do that, and neither your nor Michael never told me that you didn't
send him your book, I couldn't have known that the missing pages could
be any problem - it was quite natural for me to assume that Michael has
the complete book available from you.
Stop making stupid accusations.
> and after all that
> little Joeseff Goebels
480 points.
> turnes me to be the lier
Well, you are. E.g. you accused me of snipping stuff in your post which
simply wasn't there.
> ok you are doing very well as a pupil of Joeseff Goebels.
520 points.
> and an imbecil scintist.
Were the 4 professors who awarded me my PhD also imbecils?
Were the peer reviewers who let me publish my papers also imbecils?
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
Hi Mike
'et tu Mike' ????
i suggest you start reading my book and discuss it with me!!
are you sure you undestant it ?? i doubt
btw do you consider ferebachers behaviour by jumping an suggestion
his copy with his remarks before you got my complete book
(while you addresed first me in asking *mjy book*)
with my remarks as a decent behaviour?
have you ever heared about such case?
does my remarks on it do not interest you ???
do you think that Bjoern understands my book better than myself?
do you think *he undestood it*?
just now i am discussion with hin\m after one year a clim of his
that my chain of orbitals idea is in contradiction to the
Rutherford scattering' did you notices that this idea of mine
is in contradiction to the above scattering?
did you duscussed with me any of his remarks on the book.
do you think that is a decent behaviour of yourse to evaluate my book
publically before you discussed it with me ??
did you let me know that you didnt got all the pages of the book?.
do you know that copying a copyrighted book partially without
informing the author is againt the law?
now who is to shame?
did you notices how during a *whole year that leech is herrsing me personally*
by interveaning at *ant article* i send or addrerss someone else?
do you approve such a behaviour
and after all who is Feuerbacher that insist of teaching me physics?
the one that claime that there is a EM wave that has ---
--one cycle per year? that is the man you want me to thank him??
i just start to wander about you?
do you think my book is crap? just say it loud and clear!!
--------------------
Y.Porat
---------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Yes, I would like to see Mike's comments on your book, too...
> are you sure you undestant it ?? i doubt
Yes, that's the easy way out - if someone points out the errors in your
book, simply claim that he didn't understand it. Although in fact it is
*you* who doesn't understand the counterarguments.
> btw do you consider ferebachers behaviour by jumping an suggestion
> his copy with his remarks before you got my complete book
> (while you addresed first me in asking *mjy book*)
> with my remarks as a decent behaviour?
Err, we already discussed this in the last thread, remember?
> have you ever heared about such case?
I still don't see your problem with that.
[snip]
> just now i am discussion with hin\m after one year a clim of his
> that my chain of orbitals idea is in contradiction to the
> Rutherford scattering'
Err, your model of the nucleus is in contradiction to the results of
Rutherford scattering, not your chain of orbitals-idea.
And, BTW, thanks that you finally begin to address this!
> did you notices that this idea of mine
> is in contradiction to the above scattering?
> did you duscussed with me any of his remarks on the book.
> do you think that is a decent behaviour of yourse to evaluate my book
> publically before you discussed it with me ??
Where did he evaluate your book "publically"?
> did you let me know that you didnt got all the pages of the book?.
> do you know that copying a copyrighted book partially without
> informing the author is againt the law?
I had your agreement to copy your book. Copying only parts of it is then
*not* against the law.
> now who is to shame?
You, because you didn't send your book to Michael, although you said you
will.
> did you notices how during a *whole year that leech is herrsing me personally*
> by interveaning at *ant article* i send or addrerss someone else?
I continue to correct your errors. That is not "harrassing you personally".
> do you approve such a behaviour
Correct your errors? Why shouldn't he approve of that?
> and after all who is Feuerbacher that insist of teaching me physics?
To be precise, I recommended to you to *leave* usenet and learn physics.
> the one that claime that there is a EM wave that has ---
> --one cycle per year?
What's your problem with that?
> that is the man you want me to thank him??
Yes. As Michael has said: I'm almost the only one who still bothers to
reply to your posts in detail, answering every "argument", instead of
ignoring your or simply calling your "imbecile", "idiot" or "crackpot"
(like Michael Varney and Franz Heymann sometimes). Don't you think that
my behaviour is more polite, in a sense, than that of Varney?
> i just start to wander about you?
"wonder"?
> do you think my book is crap? just say it loud and clear!!
We'll see.
Bye,
Bjoern
Gordon D. Pusch
> Y.Porat wrote:
[...]
>> did you let me know that you didnt got all the pages of the book?.
>> do you know that copying a copyrighted book partially without informing
>> the author is againt the law?
>
> I had your agreement to copy your book. Copying only parts of it is then
> *not* against the law.
Note also that the Copyright Law of most countries recognizes the right of
individuals to freely copy _portions_ of a work under the "Fair Use" section,
for research and other purposes.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Eric Gisse
[snippy]
> > and an imbecil scintist.
>
> Were the 4 professors who awarded me my PhD also imbecils?
> Were the peer reviewers who let me publish my papers also imbecils?
What was your PhD and where did you get it?
No disrepectful tone is meant, just curious. You seem to have a clue
about what your talking about but I don't know much about you, other
than arguing with Porat amuses you (like me and Stein, untill the
record repeats).
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Y.Porat
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> [...]
> >> did you let me know that you didnt got all the pages of the book?.
> >> do you know that copying a copyrighted book partially without informing
> >> the author is againt the law?
> >
> > I had your agreement to copy your book. Copying only parts of it is then
> > *not* against the law.
>
> Note also that the Copyright Law of most countries recognizes the right of
> individuals to freely copy _portions_ of a work under the "Fair Use" section,
> for research and other purposes.
>
>
> -- Gordon D. Pusch
Hi Gordy
i have no doubt that come what come may - you will unconditionally
be against me .
now just a littile honesty test for youself (to examine you attitude
to me)
just suppose (in your wild immagination) that the opposite might
happend:
ie i was instead of Bjoern and he was in my place att hat above case
no the question to youself (not to me for me the question is a rhtoric
question)
in that case which side would you take then?? ehh???
and now to Bjoern:
i am not a lawter but still it is nearly sure to me that you commited
a copyright offence:
you had my permition to copy 'the book'
any honest common person whold undestand that once he poped in in a
starnge
offer to suply the book instead of the author with his
*negative*remarks-
he would send awhole copy not a partial one
sending only the parts with his negative remrks is a clear
evidence of a malicious ntention.
it is clear that had you mentioned such a possibility-
any one instead of me 8would reject asuch an offer
and the fact was that actually untill lately i was nor aware that
it is a partial copy and i would not let such a situation to happen
(Gordon whould you like someone else treat you that way ???)
that is at least an offence afainst the 'ethical behaviour'
and thatsa part of my claimes afinst Bjoern
his PHd education seems to omit some ethics of scince behaviour
scince (unlike politics)
is not just a pile of furmulas and physics laws
it is some 'state of mind ' art.(openness intellectual integrity etc
you didnt have my permission to copy a part of it why ?
Gordon quite tuoched the point , he quoted 'for fair use'
that is an obviour case of 'unfair use' because *all of your remarks*
on that book were *negative remarks * now we realise that most of them
where based on
misunderstanding of it because of not enough discussion with me
2 you ommited (among the others ) the copyright page- that notes that
this is *a copyrighted book*
so as a result of it Moroney *could not even know * that it is
copyrighted
and he could make copyright offences because of that lack of knowledge
btw as far as i remember
it is just in that copyright note that is noted that no one is
permitted
to copy that book *or parts of it* without the permission of the
author!!
'parts of it is a separated item - not occasional!!
one of the reasons for it is
that partial quoting is in many case- lying
it is a known law in law that
/you have to tell the throghth, the whole throuth
and nothing but the thruth'
those people new what they are talking about.
now in your case it was not just quoting it was quoting + your
negative
remarks without my defencing remarks (while we know clearly that your
remarks
were based on misunderstading of my work.
btw
i have no objection that Bjoern will send *a *full copy** of my book
(even with his negative remarks and even without my counter amswers to
it)
to Gordon Pusch in order that he will get a vague impresion on it
it is an 'unfai situation' that he will talk about it without havink a
clue
what is it all about
i think that if he is a DOE member or what ever official post he has
he should have some idea about my book. it is a great 'lacoon'
if he is not aware about that happence 'under the ground'
and just under his nose
antway as i know him he will reject it. (his nose is too high in the
sky.
and in his ivoty tower)
-----------
Y.Porat
---------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> g_d_pusch_remo...@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch) wrote in message news:<gid66h6...@pusch.xnet.com>...
>
[snip]
> and now to Bjoern:
> i am not a lawter but still it is nearly sure to me that you commited
> a copyright offence:
Wrong. Read up on the copyright laws. You won't find anything there that
applies here.
> you had my permition to copy 'the book'
> any honest common person whold undestand that once he poped in in a
> starnge
> offer to suply the book instead of the author with his
> *negative*remarks-
> he would send awhole copy not a partial one
For the 20th time: you said that you will send your book to Michael,
too. So why on earth should I have copied *all* of your book? He could
have read up the missing parts easily in the copy you said you will send
him!
The *only* one to blame here is *you*. You didn't do what you said you
will do - and now you try to blame me for *your* error.
BTW, I asked Michael in the meantime what pages he is missing, and if he
wants, I will send these pages to him, too. Are you now satisfied?
> sending only the parts with his negative remrks is a clear
> evidence of a malicious ntention.
No. It is simply the thing that I made clear from the start I will do:
send Michael my comments on your book. *You* promised to send him your
book, too. Why didn't you do that?
BTW, if your model is so great, some negative remarks about it shouldn't
harm it. Why are you afraid of criticism?
> it is clear that had you mentioned such a possibility-
Essentially I had. Go back to the old thread (Google is your friend) and
read up again on our conversation back then.
[snip more repetitions and whining]
> you didnt have my permission to copy a part of it why ?
I had permission to copy it. This doesn't mean that it is my duty to
copy *all* of it. Especially in light of the fact that *you* promised to
send Michael a copy of your book, too.
> Gordon quite tuoched the point , he quoted 'for fair use'
> that is an obviour case of 'unfair use' because *all of your remarks*
> on that book were *negative remarks *
Err, sorry, when I see an error, I correct it. Stop whining about that.
"peer review" *is* fair use.
> now we realise that most of them
> where based on
> misunderstanding of it because of not enough discussion with me
*You* refused to answer my questions. Stop blaming *your* errors on me.
> 2 you ommited (among the others ) the copyright page- that notes that
> this is *a copyrighted book*
> so as a result of it Moroney *could not even know * that it is
> copyrighted
Michael would have gotten that page, if you would have done what you
said you will do: send Michael your book.
> and he could make copyright offences because of that lack of knowledge
For example?
> btw as far as i remember
> it is just in that copyright note that is noted that no one is
> permitted
> to copy that book *or parts of it* without the permission of the
> author!!
I had your permission to copy your book. That doesn't mean that I had to
copy *all* of it.
> 'parts of it is a separated item - not occasional!!
Huh?
> one of the reasons for it is
> that partial quoting is in many case- lying
I copied about 98% of your book. Do you *really* want to say that this
enabled me to misrepresent what you wrote by "partial quoting" and
"lying"??? Come on, this is *ridiculous*!
> it is a known law in law that
> /you have to tell the throghth, the whole throuth
> and nothing but the thruth'
> those people new what they are talking about.
This has nothing to do with the case at hand.
Come on, if you think I am guilty: try to find a lawyer who is willing
to take charge against me. I bet you won't find one.
> now in your case it was not just quoting it was quoting + your
> negative
> remarks without my defencing remarks (while we know clearly that your
> remarks
> were based on misunderstading of my work.
No. "we" know nothing like that. It's only you who claims that.
OTOH, *I* know clearly that most of your book is based on
misunderstandings of physics.
> btw
> i have no objection that Bjoern will send *a *full copy** of my book
> (even with his negative remarks and even without my counter amswers to
> it)
> to Gordon Pusch in order that he will get a vague impresion on it
I don't think that he wants to get your book...
> it is an 'unfai situation' that he will talk about it without havink a
> clue what is it all about
He judges your book from what you write in this newsgroup...
> i think that if he is a DOE member or what ever official post he has
> he should have some idea about my book. it is a great 'lacoon'
> if he is not aware about that happence 'under the ground'
> and just under his nose
> antway as i know him he will reject it. (his nose is too high in the
> sky.
> and in his ivoty tower)
1) "ivory". You made this error the third time now.
2) Did it ever occur to you that people perhaps reject your work because
it has no validity, not because of them having their noses "too high in
the sky"?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
> [snippy]
>
>
>>>and an imbecil scintist.
>>
>>Were the 4 professors who awarded me my PhD also imbecils?
>>Were the peer reviewers who let me publish my papers also imbecils?
>
>
> What was your PhD
Theoretical Particle Physics - my thesis was about lattice QCD.
hep-lat/0309016
> and where did you get it?
University of Heidelberg, Germany.
> No disrepectful tone is meant, just curious. You seem to have a clue
> about what your talking about
Well, not always ;-) but hopefully often enough.
> but I don't know much about you, other
> than arguing with Porat amuses you (like me and Stein, untill the
> record repeats).
I think that "amuse" is not the right word. I simply can't stand that he
continues to spew the same nonsense again and again - everytime I read
one of his posts, I get the urge to point out his errors. Unfortunately,
he doesn't ever understand my counterarguments...
That man is so full of himself - when a PhD in physics says that he
doesn't understand physics, he doesn't consider that this may be right -
he simply calls the PhD an idiot and continues to spew his
misconceptions. Well, that behaviour is usual with crackpots, I know...
Bye,
Bjoern
Michael Moroney
>Oh, hello back, Michael! Nice to see you again here!
Unfortunately I've been very busy lately (babies do that to you) so I
haven't been able keep up with sci.physics* as much as I used to.
And to anyone who is still reading this thread (and hasn't killfiled it
yet) at one time Bjoern and I were in a 'discussion' of Porat's theories.
Soon both Bjoern and Porat wanted to send me a copy of Porat's
book, but I didn't want two copies and Porat didn't like Bjoern sending
his book, but I wanted Bjoern's notes. We eventually agreed (or so I
thought) Porat would send the book and Bjoern would send his handwritten
notes in the book. Bjoern's 'notes' were most of the book, and Porat
never asked for my postal address. Or maybe he did but I had overeager
spam filters for a while.
--
-Mike
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>
>
>>Oh, hello back, Michael! Nice to see you again here!
>
>
> Unfortunately I've been very busy lately (babies do that to you)
Well, should I say "Congratulations!" here or not? ;-)
> so I
> haven't been able keep up with sci.physics* as much as I used to.
>
> And to anyone who is still reading this thread (and hasn't killfiled it
> yet) at one time Bjoern and I were in a 'discussion' of Porat's theories.
> Soon both Bjoern and Porat wanted to send me a copy of Porat's
> book, but I didn't want two copies and Porat didn't like Bjoern sending
> his book, but I wanted Bjoern's notes. We eventually agreed (or so I
> thought) Porat would send the book and Bjoern would send his handwritten
> notes in the book.
Well, you thought right. I even quoted Porat's own words, were he said
exactly this, last week. Unfortunately, even that quote doesn't stop him
from still misrepresenting what happened back then...
> Bjoern's 'notes' were most of the book,
Well, Michael, you didn't answer my question which pages you are still
missing from the book. Don't you want me to send them to you?
> and Porat
> never asked for my postal address. Or maybe he did but I had overeager
> spam filters for a while.
Or maybe he was just to lazy, or forgot this, or misremembered the
agreement (and was to lazy to look it up on Google). And now he acts as
if *I* were responsible for *his* fault...
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
Hi Mike
i just wonder why you let Bjoern 'play th einnocent lamb'
it is either because you youself ar every naive
or else God known why?
btw if you became anew father than congratulations
i btw became a new grand father lately.
anothe r btw i am curious to know what is your formal status
at your universiry? i have no green idea if you a re
a student, a teacher a proffersor or else ?
----------
now back to your friend F
i am nor sure you are aware, but his behaviour is unprecenented.
there was never before a case in which you ask me for a book (that is
a documsnted fact and you should not be ashamed of it i guess)
and F jumped in volunteeringly , between us offering
his copy *with his negativwe remarks*!
if you think that is innocent standard of behaviour than welcome.
nevertheless
i never agreedof him to send a *partial copy*!
can ypu guess why ??
because no decent scintist will vlunteer to send anotherones copy
(withnegative remarks) that is pnly partial
for instance without say the copyright note
can you guess why?
because untuill now you couldnt know it is copyrighted
and you could (potentially) sent it further without my permission
right ?(afer all we are suppose dto be decent and responsible
*and unbiased scintists)
2 i was asking you for your address you didnt answer!
3 i supposed that you have a ful copy and do not respond
that meant for me that you are neglecting the whole 'bussiness'
so there was no point for me to bagg you for my coppy
*with my defensive remark*
repeat *my copy with my defensive remarks*!
you seemd to be either uninterested *appriory* with my remarks
*and explanations*!!
did it occured to you that the author is more reliable
to explain his book ?? or may be it was good enogh for you
to get only negative remarks>
i actually new a long time that Mr F undestood very little
about that book 1 because it is very innovative and needs
investment
2 because he was biasd againt 8apprioty*
and the only thing in his mine was to prove his fist negative
stand.
once you are emotionaly against it is likely that
you will get very little a popsitive understanding.
just an example:
he probably noted that the Rutherford stattering
disproves my theory
later we realise that he didnt undestood for instance the
chine of orbitals idea
he didnt undestood that the basic orbita is very short in
size and very massive
he sayed that my 'rectangular pipe' is agasist the spheric
scattering' asuming wrongly that the rutherford scattering
is done on * a single atom* and not noticing that
it is done on a whole seet of say alominum foil that is a
volume of atoms and not a single one which has to be kept in mind.
even a smalle rectangular pipe with long electron
orbitals streching out in different directions
could give a similar to a sphere rsults.
not to mension a possiblily that that chin of orbitals
is not standing still but *vibrates* to different directions
it is not for a juming goat that whants
and is very eager to kill a new theory in one quick strik
and come out as the hero of the town.
it is for serious and *responsible scintists*
who are
open minded ratinally and not least - emotionally.
(that is the sad situation people are not aware how
emotions govern their 'ratio' ot be biasd and selective.
and i could go on with it once i had all his stupid
malicious remarks, (it may be started with stupidity
and than slipped to malice? or god knows what is in his
disturbed personality. anyway i am not a saint to suffer it!)
ps
you didnt answer my question if you think that my book
is crap if yess than say it loud and clear please.
--------------
anyway
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote in message news:<c5hfca$ish$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
>
>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, hello back, Michael! Nice to see you again here!
>>
>>Unfortunately I've been very busy lately (babies do that to you) so I
>>haven't been able keep up with sci.physics* as much as I used to.
>>
>>And to anyone who is still reading this thread (and hasn't killfiled it
>>yet) at one time Bjoern and I were in a 'discussion' of Porat's theories.
>>Soon both Bjoern and Porat wanted to send me a copy of Porat's
>>book, but I didn't want two copies and Porat didn't like Bjoern sending
>>his book, but I wanted Bjoern's notes. We eventually agreed (or so I
>>thought) Porat would send the book and Bjoern would send his handwritten
>>notes in the book. Bjoern's 'notes' were most of the book, and Porat
>>never asked for my postal address. Or maybe he did but I had overeager
>>spam filters for a while.
>
> -----------------
> Hi Mike
> i just wonder why you let Bjoern 'play th einnocent lamb'
> it is either because you youself ar every naive
> or else God known why?
Maybe because I *am* innocent?
Stop blaming me for your own error. Why didn't you send the book,
although you said you will?
> btw if you became anew father than congratulations
> i btw became a new grand father lately.
May I ask how old you are?
[snip]
> now back to your friend F
Michael and I aren't friend so far - only acquaintances.
> i am nor sure you are aware, but his behaviour is unprecenented.
If you haven't noticed: you are the *only* one in this newsgroup who
thinks by behaviour was impolite.
> there was never before a case in which you ask me for a book (that is
> a documsnted fact and you should not be ashamed of it i guess)
> and F jumped in volunteeringly , between us offering
> his copy *with his negativwe remarks*!
For the 10th time: if the material in your book is sound, negative
remarks shouldn't do it any harm. Why are you afraid?
> if you think that is innocent standard of behaviour than welcome.
> nevertheless
> i never agreed of him to send a *partial copy*!
> can ypu guess why ??
> because no decent scintist will vlunteer to send anotherones copy
> (withnegative remarks) that is pnly partial
For the 50th time: you said that you will send your whole book. So why
on earth should *I* have sent the whole book, too? Stop blaming me for
your own errors!
> for instance without say the copyright note
Michael would have seen the copyright note if you had sent him your
book, as you said you will. Why didn't you do this? Stop blaming me for
your own errors!
> can you guess why?
> because untuill now you couldnt know it is copyrighted
BFD. And, BTW, he *could* have known that if you had done what you said
you will do: send him your book.
> and you could (potentially) sent it further without my permission
> right ?
So what? What harm could that caused?
> (afer all we are suppose dto be decent and responsible
> *and unbiased scintists)
Well, I am. You obviously aren't responsible - you didn't do what you
said you will do, and now you try to blame that error on me.
> 2 i was asking you for your address you didnt answer!
Please point out where you asked for his address.
> 3 i supposed that you have a ful copy and do not respond
> that meant for me that you are neglecting the whole 'bussiness'
> so there was no point for me to bagg you for my coppy
"bagg"?
> *with my defensive remark*
> repeat *my copy with my defensive remarks*!
If your material were sound, it wouldn't need "defending".
> you seemd to be either uninterested *appriory* with my remarks
> *and explanations*!!
> did it occured to you that the author is more reliable
> to explain his book ??
Not necessarily. He may be biased to overlook the faults in his own work.
> or may be it was good enogh for you
> to get only negative remarks>
> i actually new a long time that Mr F undestood very little
> about that book 1 because it is very innovative and needs
> investment
Well, I invested a lot of time into it. Writing all those correcting
remarks really took quite a lot of time!
> 2
4
> because he was biasd againt 8apprioty*
Then why did you insist on sending it to me?
> and the only thing in his mine was to prove his fist negative
> stand.
Well, in addition to the errors in your model I found already before you
send me your book, I found a *lot* of additional errors, right.
> once you are emotionaly against it is likely that
> you will get very little a popsitive understanding.
This has nothing to do with emotions. Your book contains a lot of
*factual* errors.
> just an example:
> he probably noted that the Rutherford stattering
> disproves my theory
Yes.
> later we realise that he didnt undestood for instance the
> chine of orbitals idea
Wrong. Please point out where this happened.
> he didnt undestood that the basic orbita is very short in
> size and very massive
Wrong. Please point out where this happened.
And, BTW, all of this has nothing to do with Rutherford scattering.
> he sayed that my 'rectangular pipe'
Oh, so it isn't octogonal again?
> is agasist the spheric
> scattering' asuming wrongly that the rutherford scattering
> is done on *a single atom*
No, I didn't assume anything like that. Why on earth do you think so?
> and not noticing that
> it is done on a whole seet of say alominum foil
I know that quite well (BTW, gold foil in the original experiment). Why
on earth do you think that disproves my point?
> that is a
> volume of atoms and not a single one which has to be kept in mind.
Well, I *did* keep that in mind.
Hint: it is quite easy to show that most alpha particles are deflected
only by *one* atom in the foil - they pass easily through most of them.
Taking multiple scattering events into account also isn't very difficult.
> even a smalle rectangular pipe with long electron
> orbitals streching out in different directions
> could give a similar to a sphere rsults.
How???????????????
> not to mension a possiblily that that chin of orbitals
> is not standing still but *vibrates* to different directions
AFAIK, you never mentioned this before.
And even if that would be true - what has this to do with a spherical
distribution?
> it is not for a juming goat that whants
> and is very eager to kill a new theory in one quick strik
> and come out as the hero of the town.
I don't think that anyone would consider me a "hero" for disproving your
model.
> it is for serious and *responsible scintists*
> who are open minded ratinally and not least - emotionally.
All of that applies to me. You are so far the only one who says otherwise.
> (that is the sad situation people are not aware how
> emotions govern their 'ratio' ot be biasd and selective.
That says the right one. *Who* posted posts filled with tirades of
insults in the last weeks?
> and i could go on with it once i had all his stupid
> malicious remarks,
My remarks are neither stupid nor malicious. I simply correct your errors.
> (it may be started with stupidity
> and than slipped to malice?
Sounds like your reactions to my posts.
> or god knows what is in his
> disturbed personality.
I notice that you *still* think that insults are arguments.
> anyway i am not a saint to suffer it!)
Well, that much is clear.
> ps
> you didnt answer my question if you think that my book
> is crap if yess than say it loud and clear please.
We'll see.
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
Mr Gisse
lets examine that 'full of himself' that F acuses me:
suppose that a young Phd of Hedelberg claimes persistantly
(untill that very momernt that:
*THERE IS A PHOTON WITH THE FREQUENCY OF -
ONE CYCLE PER *** YEAR***
he is a phd right?
now comes an ananymous but famous cracpoy called Y.Porat
and tells him that that is dumn mathmatician nonsense
in more polite words:
that is a masterpeace of a prove that one of the
disasters that happened to modern scince is that
mathematicians that have not the minimal 'physics touch'
took over scince!!
and even a young pompous new phd thinks that once there is
a maxwel formula you can spread its uses to any limits
and any case of physics that is ever possible
and that pompus phd thinks that once he is a phd than
anything he will say and claim and anything
another one who is not a phd will say is apriory
inferiour to what the phd will say
what will your stand be for that ?
to be more specific:
do you as well as F claim that there
is a photon or EM wave with the frequency of
one cycle per year?
(that is verymeaninful with our dispute about my definition
of the photon mass)
please note: the crackpot porat was suggesting a
defining the photon mass
and many other innovations
the young genious who whants to forcefully teach anyone physics
(i once heared about a scouth boy who learned that 'each day
you have to do a good deed!!'
so he went outside and saw a very old lady walking on the pavement
so he came to her took her by her arm
and passed her the road!!
(the poor old lady was screeming and protesting that she does
not at all *whants * to cross the road!
but nothing helped her.)
didnt innovate anything in his life.
the most he did( i guess as the usual phd )
in his PHd is recycling or reshaping some other
existing theories or i suppose gathering and quoting
from here and there nothing new or practically useful
or realy innovative.(again i say it based on the usual
phd works nothing meaninfully new)
or may be before curing me from my 'too full of myself'
he needs some curing from that same decease??
TIA Mr Gisse
now you will see that F is jumping answering before *you*
that is his standard behaviour.
that is a part of the phd education he got(or may be didnt got)
in his scintific educations
--------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04040...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>
>>[snippy]
>>
>>
>>>>and an imbecil scintist.
>>>
>>>Were the 4 professors who awarded me my PhD also imbecils?
>>>Were the peer reviewers who let me publish my papers also imbecils?
>>
>>What was your PhD and where did you get it?
>>
>>No disrepectful tone is meant, just curious. You seem to have a clue
>>about what your talking about but I don't know much about you, other
>>than arguing with Porat amuses you (like me and Stein, untill the
>>record repeats).
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Bye,
>>>Bjoern
>
> ------------------
> Mr Gisse
>
> lets examine that 'full of himself' that F acuses me:
> suppose that a young Phd of Hedelberg claimes persistantly
> (untill that very momernt that:
> *THERE IS A PHOTON WITH THE FREQUENCY OF -
> ONE CYCLE PER *** YEAR***
First, I didn't claim that. What I said is that the motion of the earth
around the sun creates an electromagnetic *wave* with a frequency of 1/1
year.
Second: what on earth do you think is ridiculous about that?!?!?!?!?
> he is a phd right?
Right.
> now comes an ananymous but famous cracpoy called Y.Porat
> and tells him that that is dumn mathmatician nonsense
Assert this, to be more precise.
And, hint: using Maxwell's equations to predict something
is not "dumb mathematician nonsense.". It's plain sensible
physics.
> in more polite words:
>
> that is a masterpeace of a prove that one of the
> disasters that happened to modern scince is that
> mathematicians that have not the minimal 'physics touch'
> took over scince!!
Please explain in detail why the prediction of Maxwell's equations
that an electromagnetic wave with the frequency 1/1 year should
be created by the motion of the earth around the sun "proves"
a "disaster" of "modern science".
> and even a young pompous new phd thinks that once there is
> a maxwel formula you can spread its uses to any limits
> and any case of physics that is ever possible
As long as there is no reason to think there is a limit - yes, why not?
Could you please explain what the problem with an electromagnetic wave
with a frequency of 1/1 year is?
Why is this more ridiculous than a wave with a frequency of, say, 1 Hz?
> and that pompus phd thinks that once he is a phd than
> anything he will say and claim and anything
> another one who is not a phd will say is apriory
> inferiour to what the phd will say
Absolute utter nonsense.
[snip]
> please note: the crackpot porat was suggesting a
> defining the photon mass
And that alone shows that you are indeed a crackpot - since it should
be *obvious* that particle masses can't be "defined". They have to be
*measured*.
> and many other innovations
Read: assertions.
> the young genious who whants to forcefully teach anyone physics
Err, no. I told you that you should *leave* the newsgroup and learn
physics from *books*.
[snip strange story]
> didnt innovate anything in his life.
Wrong. I've published already several papers.
> the most he did( i guess as the usual phd )
> in his PHd is recycling or reshaping some other
> existing theories or i suppose gathering and quoting
> from here and there nothing new or practically useful
> or realy innovative.
Nonsense. You haven't ever looked at my PhD thesis, so
this is a totally unsupported assertion.
> (again i say it based on the usual
> phd works nothing meaninfully new)
And how do you know what the "usual PhD work" is?
> or may be before curing me from my 'too full of myself'
> he needs some curing from that same decease??
Well, *I* don't claim expertise and make broad, boasting pronouncements
in areas I know close to nothing about.
> TIA Mr Gisse
> now you will see that F is jumping answering before *you*
> that is his standard behaviour.
Do you expect me to ignore a post which is filled with insults against
me? Is that your idea of "free speech" - you are allowed ?
to say anything you like, but no one other is ever allowed to critize you?
> that is a part of the phd education he got(or may be didnt got)
> in his scintific educations
Nonsense.
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >>
> >>[snippy]
> >>
> >>
> >>>>and an imbecil scintist.
> >>>
> >>>Were the 4 professors who awarded me my PhD also imbecils?
> >>>Were the peer reviewers who let me publish my papers also imbecils?
> >>
> >>What was your PhD and where did you get it?
> >>
> >>No disrepectful tone is meant, just curious. You seem to have a clue
> >>about what your talking about but I don't know much about you, other
> >>than arguing with Porat amuses you (like me and Stein, untill the
> >>record repeats).
sorry for top posting
but no one will read the rest hundred personal lines
so
lets hear if Gisse will support your claim
about an em wave with 'one cycle per *year*
btw i am glad that you are peersistant with your above claime ......
Y.Porat
ps if i call myself a crackpot that something--
if *you* call me a crackpot- thats very different!!
do you know why ?
because you are not authorized and not cleaver enough to do it
if you dont know what is 'cleaver enough' - see the 'one cycle per year!!'
---------------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c60gs6$1sk$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04040...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>>
>>>>[snippy]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>and an imbecil scintist.
>>>>>
>>>>>Were the 4 professors who awarded me my PhD also imbecils?
>>>>>Were the peer reviewers who let me publish my papers also imbecils?
>>>>
>>>>What was your PhD and where did you get it?
>>>>
>>>>No disrepectful tone is meant, just curious. You seem to have a clue
>>>>about what your talking about but I don't know much about you, other
>>>>than arguing with Porat amuses you (like me and Stein, untill the
>>>>record repeats).
>
> ------------------------
> sorry for top posting
> but no one will read the rest hundred personal lines
Pardon???
1) The post wasn't very long.
2) It was not "personal".
> so
> lets hear if Gisse will support your claim
> about an em wave with 'one cycle per *year*
Apparently he left the thread.
> btw i am glad that you are peersistant with your above claime ......
Why shouldn't I be??? It makes perfect sense.
Could you *please* tell me what your problem with an electromagnetic
wave with a frequency of 1/1 year is?!?!?
> Y.Porat
> ps if i call myself a crackpot that something--
> if *you* call me a crackpot- thats very different!!
If you say so.
> do you know why ?
> because you are not authorized
Why do I need to be authorized to do this? By whom do I get authorized?
> and not cleaver enough to do it
Says the one who can't even write "clever" correctly. I rest my case.
> if you dont know what is 'cleaver enough' - see the 'one cycle per year!!'
Incomprehensible.
Bye,
Bjoern
[snip arguments which were, as usual, ignored my Porat]
Grey Knight
> Could you *please* tell me what your problem with an electromagnetic
> wave with a frequency of 1/1 year is?!?!?
He can't conceive of it. Ergo, it is impossible.
Y.Porat
i saied no more discussions between a 'crackpot' and a phd!
go discuss with your class and get of my beck
---------------
Y.Porat
-------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Hello? Could you *please* answer this?
>>>Y.Porat
>>>ps if i call myself a crackpot that something--
>>>if *you* call me a crackpot- thats very different!!
>>
>>If you say so.
>>
>>
>>
>>>do you know why ?
>>>because you are not authorized
>>
>>Why do I need to be authorized to do this? By whom do I get authorized?
>>
>>
>>
>>>and not cleaver enough to do it
>>
>>Says the one who can't even write "clever" correctly. I rest my case.
>>
>>
>>
>>>if you dont know what is 'cleaver enough' - see the 'one cycle per year!!'
>>
>>Incomprehensible.
>>
>>
>>Bye,
>>Bjoern
>>
>>
>>[snip arguments which were, as usual, ignored my Porat]
>
> ------------------
> i saied no more discussions between a 'crackpot' and a phd!
In other words: you can't answer any of my arguments or my questions, so
you simply ignore me. Well, even the ignoring you can't get right, as
one can see here...
> go discuss with your class
I don't have a "class".
> and get of my beck
I'm neither in your "beck" nor in your back.
Bye,
Bjoern
Eric Gisse
> fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> > [snippy]
> >
> > > > and an imbecil scintist.
> > >
> > > Were the 4 professors who awarded me my PhD also imbecils?
> > > Were the peer reviewers who let me publish my papers also imbecils?
> >
> > What was your PhD and where did you get it?
> >
> > No disrepectful tone is meant, just curious. You seem to have a clue
> > about what your talking about but I don't know much about you, other
> > than arguing with Porat amuses you (like me and Stein, untill the
> > record repeats).
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bye,
> > > Bjoern
> ------------------
> Mr Gisse
>
> lets examine that 'full of himself' that F acuses me:
> suppose that a young Phd of Hedelberg claimes persistantly
> (untill that very momernt that:
> *THERE IS A PHOTON WITH THE FREQUENCY OF -
> ONE CYCLE PER *** YEAR***
> he is a phd right?
Until you explain why there can't be one, I see it as being entirely
possible.
>
> now comes an ananymous but famous cracpoy called Y.Porat
> and tells him that that is dumn mathmatician nonsense
> in more polite words:
Notice how I can spell words correctly.
You are neither anonymous nor famous.
>
> that is a masterpeace of a prove that one of the
> disasters that happened to modern scince is that
> mathematicians that have not the minimal 'physics touch'
> took over scince!!
You can't even spell "proof", for fucks sake.
Yes math has taken over science - everyone knows that. People have
been trying to forumulate the physical world into math for centuries,
and it surprises me not a whit.
Math is chosen because it works the best and you can make predictions
with it. I assume you have an alternative?
> and even a young pompous new phd thinks that once there is
> a maxwel formula you can spread its uses to any limits
Do you know any of Maxwell's [notice the spelling] equations? Either
integral or vector form will do.
>
> and any case of physics that is ever possible
>
> and that pompus phd thinks that once he is a phd than
> anything he will say and claim and anything
> another one who is not a phd will say is apriory
> inferiour to what the phd will say
When you, a obviously poorly educated person, start arguing particle
physics with a particle physics PhD...
>
> what will your stand be for that ?
Ill side with the strawman you assembled.
>
> to be more specific:
> do you as well as F claim that there
> is a photon or EM wave with the frequency of
> one cycle per year?
Since I don't know of something that would prevent it, sure. It would
be nigh-undetectable though.
> (that is verymeaninful with our dispute about my definition
> of the photon mass)
Not really. I would say why, but im sure anything I could say has been
said and expanded upon by Bjoern at least 3 times before.
> please note: the crackpot porat was suggesting a
You spelled crackpot right this time around! Good job.
> defining the photon mass
> and many other innovations
> the young genious who whants to forcefully teach anyone physics
>
> (i once heared about a scouth boy who learned that 'each day
> you have to do a good deed!!'
>
> so he went outside and saw a very old lady walking on the pavement
> so he came to her took her by her arm
> and passed her the road!!
>
> (the poor old lady was screeming and protesting that she does
> not at all *whants * to cross the road!
> but nothing helped her.)
What the fuck did that have to do with anything?
> didnt innovate anything in his life.
> the most he did( i guess as the usual phd )
> in his PHd is recycling or reshaping some other
> existing theories or i suppose gathering and quoting
> from here and there nothing new or practically useful
> or realy innovative.(again i say it based on the usual
> phd works nothing meaninfully new)
In order to claim what you just claimed, you would have to have a
level of understanding that is at the level of which the paper was
written. You obviously do not have that knowledge judging from the
arguments I have seen you use and the quality of spelling you
entertain.
Not only that, but you are painfully ignorant about anything regarding
a PhD.
>
> or may be before curing me from my 'too full of myself'
> he needs some curing from that same decease??
You are so full of yourself that its falling on the floor.
>
> TIA Mr Gisse
> now you will see that F is jumping answering before *you*
> that is his standard behaviour.
Considering most of this involves him and you, im not surprised.
> that is a part of the phd education he got(or may be didnt got)
> in his scintific educations
> --------------------
As opposed to the volumes of scientific education you obviously did
not get?
I am usually a lot more forgiving if I see someone with poor spelling,
because I naturally assume that not everyone has had a western
education.
I am not forgiving of you because not only can you not spell, but you
have very little knowledge of the things you attempt to discuss. In
fact, you can barely spell the things you attempt to discuss.
Michael Moroney
>Hi Mike
>i just wonder why you let Bjoern 'play th einnocent lamb'
>it is either because you youself ar every naive
>or else God known why?
Neither. Bjoern said he would send the pages of your books with his
notes, and he did.
>btw if you became anew father than congratulations
Thanks. Joanne is 9 months now.
>i btw became a new grand father lately.
Congratulations on your grandchild.
>anothe r btw i am curious to know what is your formal status
>at your universiry? i have no green idea if you a re
>a student, a teacher a proffersor or else ?
I am not in any university (either as a student or teacher), just a
programmer with strong curiosity of nuclear & particle physics.
>now back to your friend F
I only know him through these newsgroups and a few emails.
>i am nor sure you are aware, but his behaviour is unprecenented.
>there was never before a case in which you ask me for a book (that is
>a documsnted fact and you should not be ashamed of it i guess)
>and F jumped in volunteeringly , between us offering
>his copy *with his negativwe remarks*!
I don't believe I actually asked. Both you & Bjoern volunteered to
send a copy, and I wrote I didn't want two copies. As I remember we
finally agreed you'd send a copy and Bjoern would send his comments.
--
-Mike
Michael Moroney
>>>Could you *please* tell me what your problem with an electromagnetic
>>>wave with a frequency of 1/1 year is?!?!?
>Hello? Could you *please* answer this?
There should be no problems with such an EM wave. If the earth has a
net charge (and I believe it does), it should be emitting such waves/
photons continuously as it orbits the sun. Of course each such photon
has extremely low energy.
Any acceleration of an electric charge, including a charge moving in a
circle, emits EM waves (photons). An electrically charged earth included.
--
-Mike
Gordon D. Pusch
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>
>>>> Could you *please* tell me what your problem with an electromagnetic
>>>> wave with a frequency of 1/1 year is?!?!?
>>
>> Hello? Could you *please* answer this?
>
> There should be no problems with such an EM wave. If the earth has a
> net charge (and I believe it does), it should be emitting such waves/
> photons continuously as it orbits the sun. Of course each such photon
> has extremely low energy.
Since the Earth has a non-zero magnetic moment and undergoes (quasi)periodic
accelerated motion as it orbits the Sun, it will emit such photons even if
it _doesn't_ have a net charge (which in fact it probably _doesn't_, since
it is immersed in a conductive plasma environment (the solar wind) which
would tend to bleed off any net charge).
> Any acceleration of an electric charge, including a charge moving in a
> circle, emits EM waves (photons). An electrically charged earth included.
Or even any _uncharged_ body with a non-zero magnetic moment, or non-zero
higher electric or magnetic multipole moment.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
Michael Moroney
>mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>> There should be no problems with such an EM wave. If the earth has a
>> net charge (and I believe it does), it should be emitting such waves/
>> photons continuously as it orbits the sun. Of course each such photon
>> has extremely low energy.
>Since the Earth has a non-zero magnetic moment and undergoes (quasi)periodic
>accelerated motion as it orbits the Sun, it will emit such photons even if
>it _doesn't_ have a net charge
Oh yeah, forgot about the magnetic bit. Thanks.
> (which in fact it probably _doesn't_, since
>it is immersed in a conductive plasma environment (the solar wind) which
>would tend to bleed off any net charge).
I just remember reading somewhere it did have a relatively small charge
(few coulombs) but I have no idea where I saw that nor why it would retain
such a charge in the solar wind.
--
-Mike
Y.Porat
> map...@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > >
>
> > ------------------
> > Mr Gisse
> >
> > lets examine that 'full of himself' that F acuses me:
> > suppose that a young Phd of Hedelberg claimes persistantly
> > (untill that very momernt that:
> > *THERE IS A PHOTON WITH THE FREQUENCY OF -
> > ONE CYCLE PER *** YEAR***
> > he is a phd right?
>
> Until you explain why there can't be one, I see it as being entirely
> possible.
you see that is exactly an example of people who call themselves scintists
have no physics basic comonsense and touch:
have you ever thought about
*what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
-------
it is more than obvious that your are personally biased in favour
of Bjoern and against me
just to remind you:
you saied in one of the above article:
i am too lazy to look up for it- it was somethinglike
'destroy him'
is it a way of speach of a 'western civilized' as you put youself scintists
or is it an expression of a personal ful of personal
hatred - poslitics.?
--------------
>
> >
> > now comes an ananymous but famous cracpoy called Y.Porat
> > and tells him that that is dumn mathmatician nonsense
> > in more polite words:
>
> Notice how I can spell words correctly.
>
> You are neither anonymous nor famous.
about my spelling:
i am not a native English speaker my native language if far away
from it it is the language in which the Bible was orriginaly was written
even the letters are not even simmilar
and i dont use a spell checker because that editor hast one
and besides you see that every one understands my mainpoints
even with the mistakes.
so probably mybeing a 'freighner' is a good reason for hating my guts.
btw in spight your superiourty on me by your western education
*my education is as well western* and most of our people consider themselves
belong to the western world.
my parents where born in Europ yet
all my family from my fathers side where murdered in the gass chambers
of europian educated people.
(now you know why suggested that feuerbacher(and you)
will destroy me by sending me
to a gas chamber and make the 'final solusion of me'
it could save you a lot of my scintific nonsense.
---------------------
>
> >
> > that is a masterpeace of a prove that one of the
> > disasters that happened to modern scince is that
> > mathematicians that have not the minimal 'physics touch'
> > took over scince!!
>
> You can't even spell "proof", for fucks sake.
that petty ocupation with myspelling is a prove
that you have nothing better against me.
--------------
>
> Yes math has taken over science - everyone knows that. People have
> been trying to forumulate the physical world into math for centuries,
> and it surprises me not a whit.
>
> Math is chosen because it works the best and you can make predictions
> with it. I assume you have an alternative?
yes
maths is maths and physics is physics
there is no authomatic o0verlapp between the two!!!
once you have a mathematic formula it is at the beginning
in most cases limitless*
while the physical world has limits
the roll of a real physicist is to find the limits
that this physical reality is dictating
and iwe find many cases in which physisist fail to do it
the maxwell ( i am too lazy to see your spelling of that name
because it is zero meaning if i write it corr3ctly or not)
so that formula is another example of a case in which
limits to it has to be found.
even if you take the say Coulomb formula for electric force
the formula tells you that only at infinity it will be zero
while in practice it is much less than infinity
that it is zero. just an examp-le thar occures to me now.
---------------
>
> > and even a young pompous new phd thinks that once there is
> > a maxwel formula you can spread its uses to any limits
>
> Do you know any of Maxwell's [notice the spelling] equations? Either
> integral or vector form will do.
>
> >
> > and any case of physics that is ever possible
> >
> > and that pompus phd thinks that once he is a phd than
> > anything he will say and claim and anything
> > another one who is not a phd will say is apriory
> > inferiour to what the phd will say
>
> When you, a obviously poorly educated person, start arguing particle
> physics with a particle physics PhD...
that is a remark of a biased person
( i neerly was tempted to say - an idiot - but No! i want say it)
you know nothing about me and my achievements and you make a stupid
prejudice remark
a person who claimes that there is a photon wave with once cycle perytear
is a parrot!! if you dont realise it now you will realize it later
there is one thing i must addmit i hate:
i hate people who are more politiciance than scintists
and lack intellectual interrity
keep well
i can see that our discussion is apropory doomed by prejudice
and in such a case it is a wast of time.
-----------------------
Y.Porat (a known crackpot)
------------------------
>
>
Y.Porat
have you ever thought about
is it a year ???!!!
is there no limit to mathematical stupidity?
have you seen the HUP analysis for mass versus time??
if you whant you can take it as
energy versus time
and yet the genious Pusch is suporting a photon whith
once cycle per year!!
that is a masterpeace of a paerson who is more a politician
rather a scintist.
--------------
Y.Porat (the crackpot)
---------------------
Y.Porat
mike
btw
you still didnt answer my question if you consider my book
as crap and a waist of time to study it ?
---------------
Y.Porat
------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Even if it didn't have a net charge, it surely has a magnetic moment -
and an accelerated (changing) magnetic moment radiates, too.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote in message news:<c64knd$9r1$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
>
>>g_d_pusch_remo...@xnet.com (Gordon D. Pusch) writes:
>>
>>
>>>mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>There should be no problems with such an EM wave. If the earth has a
>>>>net charge (and I believe it does), it should be emitting such waves/
>>>>photons continuously as it orbits the sun. Of course each such photon
>>>>has extremely low energy.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Since the Earth has a non-zero magnetic moment and undergoes (quasi)periodic
>>>accelerated motion as it orbits the Sun, it will emit such photons even if
>>>it _doesn't_ have a net charge
>>
>>Oh yeah, forgot about the magnetic bit. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>(which in fact it probably _doesn't_, since
>>>it is immersed in a conductive plasma environment (the solar wind) which
>>>would tend to bleed off any net charge).
>>
>>I just remember reading somewhere it did have a relatively small charge
>>(few coulombs) but I have no idea where I saw that nor why it would retain
>>such a charge in the solar wind.
>
> ------------------------
> have you ever thought about
> *what is the life time of a photon wave ?*
Depends on the wave. In general, a wave "lives" until it is absorbed.
> is it a year ???!!!
Why on eart should it be?
> is there no limit to mathematical stupidity?
Why do you call the above "mathematical stupidity"???
> have you seen the HUP analysis for mass versus time??
You don't understand the HUP.
> if you whant you can take it as
> energy versus time
This makes no sense.
> and yet the genious Pusch is suporting a photon whith
> once cycle per year!!
Hint: *every* physicist so far who has commented on this has supported
Franz and me. Only *you* keep claiming this this is "ridiculous" -
without *ever* explaining *what* is so ridiculous about that.
> that is a masterpeace of a paerson who is more a politician
> rather a scintist.
How do you know that Pusch is more a politician than a scientist?
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>map...@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04040...@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Bjoern
>>>
>>>------------------
>>>Mr Gisse
>>>
>>>lets examine that 'full of himself' that F acuses me:
>>>suppose that a young Phd of Hedelberg claimes persistantly
>>>(untill that very momernt that:
>>>*THERE IS A PHOTON WITH THE FREQUENCY OF -
>>>ONE CYCLE PER *** YEAR***
>>>he is a phd right?
>>
>>Until you explain why there can't be one, I see it as being entirely
>>possible.
>
> ------------------------
> you see that is exactly an example of people who call themselves scintists
> have no physics basic comonsense and touch:
Oh, you are talking about yourself again?
> have you ever thought about
> *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
A "photon wave" "lives" until it is absorbed. Isn't that obvious?
> is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
Depends on when it is absorbed.
> -------
> it is more than obvious that your are personally biased in favour
> of Bjoern and against me
Oh, anyone who agrees with me and points out your errors is "biased" in
favor of me? You really live in a strange world.
[snip whining]
>>>now comes an ananymous but famous cracpoy called Y.Porat
>>>and tells him that that is dumn mathmatician nonsense
>>>in more polite words:
>>
>>Notice how I can spell words correctly.
>>
>>You are neither anonymous nor famous.
>
> --------------
> about my spelling:
> i am not a native English speaker
Well, I'm no native English speaker, too. So what? I nevertheless try to
spell correctly - and I think I succeed in general.
> my native language if far away
> from it it is the language in which the Bible was orriginaly was written
Is that in any way relevant here?
> even the letters are not even simmilar
> and i dont use a spell checker because that editor hast one
Has none? Or what did you intend to say here???
So, why don't you simply use *another* editor?!?!?
> and besides you see that every one understands my mainpoints
> even with the mistakes.
Did it ever occur to you that it is totally *impolite* to your readers
that you don't care if your spelling is right, and that what you write
will be comprehensible?
> so probably mybeing a 'freighner' is a good reason for hating my guts.
A what? "foreigner" perhaps?
BTW, I don't think that anybody here *hates* you.
> btw in spight your superiourty on me by your western education
> *my education is as well western*
> and most of our people consider themselves
> belong to the western world.
Well, then you should be able to write clear English.
> my parents where born in Europ yet
> all my family from my fathers side where murdered in the gass chambers
> of europian educated people.
Sorry for you. :-(
But: how is that relevant here?
> (now you know why suggested that feuerbacher(and you)
> will destroy me by sending me
> to a gas chamber and make the 'final solusion of me'
> it could save you a lot of my scintific nonsense.
No one ever suggested here killing you. Stop attacking this totally
ridiculous straw man.
>>>that is a masterpeace of a prove that one of the
>>>disasters that happened to modern scince is that
>>>mathematicians that have not the minimal 'physics touch'
>>>took over scince!!
>>
>>You can't even spell "proof", for fucks sake.
>
> -------------
> that petty ocupation with myspelling is a prove
> that you have nothing better against me.
I notice that you *again* misspelled "proof" - although you were
corrected about this just one sentence ago!!! Yes, that speaks *volumes*
about you... Especially about your learning abilities.
>>Yes math has taken over science - everyone knows that. People have
>>been trying to forumulate the physical world into math for centuries,
>>and it surprises me not a whit.
>>
>>Math is chosen because it works the best and you can make predictions
>>with it. I assume you have an alternative?
>
> ----------------
> yes
> maths is maths and physics is physics
Oh, and what is "Mathematical Physics" then? You *do* know that that
area of research exists, don't you?
> there is no authomatic o0verlapp between the two!!!
Please point out how do you plan to do physics, especially make
quantitative predictions, without using maths.
You would drop back even below the level of the Greek physics - even
they used already maths in physics (to be more precise, in astronomy and
geology). So, you advise us to give up all achievements of physics of
the last, say, 2500 years?
> once you have a mathematic formula it is at the beginning
> in most cases limitless*
> while the physical world has limits
Well, mathematical formulas given in physics are almost every time
embedded in a *context*. That context tells you what the limits of the
applicability of the formulas are.
> the roll of a real physicist is to find the limits
> that this physical reality is dictating
Yes, that's *one* of the roles of a physicist.
So what? Where is your evidence that a frequency of 1 Hz is a limit for
electromagnetic waves? Where is your evidence that a frequency of 1/1
year is not possible?
You seem to confuse "find limits" with "assert that there is a limit,
without any evidence to back that up".
> and iwe find many cases in which physisist fail to do it
Says you.
> the maxwell ( i am too lazy to see your spelling of that name
> because it is zero meaning if i write it corr3ctly or not)
I repeat: willfull bad spelling is impoliteness to your readers.
> so that formula
Formulas. Plural, not singular. And even better: equations. Don't you
even know that there are *several* equations by Maxwell on
electrodynamics, and that *all* are needed to describe electrodynamics?
Hey, what do they teach you in an engineering education?!?
> is another example of a case in which
> limits to it has to be found.
Yes. Hint: they were found. That's why we use QED today, in the cases
where Maxwell's equations no longer apply.
> even if you take the say Coulomb formula for electric force
> the formula tells you that only at infinity it will be zero
Yes.
> while in practice it is much less than infinity
> that it is zero.
Present evidence for that assertion.
> just an examp-le thar occures to me now.
Just another unsupported assertion.
>>>and even a young pompous new phd thinks that once there is
>>>a maxwel formula you can spread its uses to any limits
>>
>>Do you know any of Maxwell's [notice the spelling] equations? Either
>>integral or vector form will do.
Hello?
>>>and any case of physics that is ever possible
>>>
>>>and that pompus phd thinks that once he is a phd than
>>>anything he will say and claim and anything
>>>another one who is not a phd will say is apriory
>>>inferiour to what the phd will say
>>
>>When you, a obviously poorly educated person, start arguing particle
>>physics with a particle physics PhD...
>
> --------------------
> that is a remark of a biased person
If you call someone who thinks that someone with a PhD knows better what
he is talking about than a layman "biased"...
> ( i neerly was tempted to say - an idiot - but No! i want say it)
Well, you did say it.
> you know nothing about me and my achievements
From what you posted in sci.physics, you have got an education as a
structural engineer, you built some bridges, and based on this, you
somehow think you understand more about atomic and nuclear physics than
any atomic or nuclear physicist.
> and you make a stupid prejudice remark
Arguing that someone with a PhD in particle physics understands probably
more about particle physics than you is not "prejudiced".
> a person who claimes that there is a photon wave with once cycle perytear
> is a parrot!!
Huh? Why? This wasn't written in any book or say by anyone (besides
Franz) so far, so how on earth could I have "parrotted" this?
> if you dont realise it now you will realize it later
Unsupported assertion.
Porat, the list of people who think that the orbit of the earth around
the sun will create an electromagnetic wave with a frequency with 1/1
year includes now:
Franz Heymann
Eric Gisse
Michael Moroney
Gordon D. Pusch
me
IIRC, Michael said that he has got no formal education in physics, but
other four *have* got such an education (AFAIK). How many physicists do
you need to tell you that this idea makes sense, until you finally admit
that you may have been wrong?
Oh, BTW, you *still* have not explained what is ridiculous about that idea.
> there is one thing i must addmit i hate:
> i hate people who are more politiciance than scintists
I've seen none of those here.
> and lack intellectual interrity
Oh, speaking of yourself again?
> keep well
> i can see that our discussion is apropory doomed by prejudice
> and in such a case it is a wast of time.
Yes, that's the easy way out. In other words: you flee, as usual.
Bye,
Bjoern
Franz Heymann
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> mike
> btw
> you still didnt answer my question if you consider my book
> as crap and a waist of time to study it ?
I have not read your book, but I know without opening it that it is
composed entirely of crap, and rather poor quality crap at that.
Franz
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> Y.Porat (the crackpot)
You are a disgrace to any self-respecting crackpot. You are a moron
and an imbecile.
Franz
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> have you ever thought about
> *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
Yes, often.
> is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
It is a totally stable particle. It will last until it is absorbed in
an inrteraction, however long that may take.
There are photons detected on earth which are more than 10,000,000,000
years old. There are also others detected here which are only a few
nanoseconds old.
> it is more than obvious that your are personally biased in favour
> of Bjoern and against me
Just for luck, I offer you the thought that I am also personally
biassed in favour of Bjoern's integrity rather than yours.
> just to remind you:
> you saied in one of the above article:
> i am too lazy to look up for it- it was somethinglike
> 'destroy him'
> is it a way of speach of a 'western civilized' as you put youself
scintists
> or is it an expression of a personal ful of personal
> hatred - poslitics.?
There is no hatred involved in showing you up as a fraud.
Will you ever learn that if you are full of bullshit, you should keep
your mouth closed, lest it escapes.
> about my spelling:
> i am not a native English speaker
You have posted here for long enough to have become totally proficient
in the use of English, assuming that you have any intelligence.
[snip]
> *my education is as well western*
What education?
[snip]
> maths is maths and physics is physics
The language of physics is mathematics. That is why it is such a
successful intellectual occupation.
[snip]
Franz
Jasper Stein
> ------------------------
> you see that is exactly an example of people who call themselves
> scintists have no physics basic comonsense and touch:
> have you ever thought about
> *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
> is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
> -------
Seeing that we can see the stars (several light years off) - I'd say
well over a year.
In fact since we see very-far-off stars (thousands of millions of light
years) I'd say pretty darn well over a year.
Jasper
--
The problem with having an open mind is that people toss in garbage
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > have you ever thought about
> > *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
>
> Yes, often.
>
> > is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> > is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
>
> It is a totally stable particle. It will last until it is absorbed in
> an inrteraction, however long that may take.
> There are photons detected on earth which are more than 10,000,000,000
> years old. There are also others detected here which are only a few
> nanoseconds old.
ok
let me put it another way:
what is the mechanism that creates photons in microcosm?
a secondary question:
do you think that there is a limit to how slow a photon frequency can be.
iow
a minimal energy to create a photon?
-----------------
Y.Porat
-------------
>
Y.Porat
> news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > have you ever thought about
> > *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
>
> Yes, often.
>
> > is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> > is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
>
> It is a totally stable particle. It will last until it is absorbed in
> an inrteraction, however long that may take.
> There are photons detected on earth which are more than 10,000,000,000
> years old. There are also others detected here which are only a few
> nanoseconds old.
now another question:
what is the slowest frequancy of a photon ever measured?
-----------------
Y.Porat
------------------
>
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c65hsf$nfe$6...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
>
>>"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
>>news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>have you ever thought about
>>>*what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
>>
>>Yes, often.
>>
>>
>>>is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
>>>is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
>>
>>It is a totally stable particle. It will last until it is absorbed in
>>an inrteraction, however long that may take.
>>There are photons detected on earth which are more than 10,000,000,000
>>years old. There are also others detected here which are only a few
>>nanoseconds old.
>
> --------------------------
> ok
> let me put it another way:
I don't see what this "other way" has to do with your original question.
> what is the mechanism that creates photons in microcosm?
Transfer of energy to the electromagnetic field, which excites that
field. The excitations of that field are the things commonly called
"photons".
If you call this "handwaving", please notice that there is a vast amount
of evidence behind this explanation of photons (i.e., all the successful
predictions of QED).
> a secondary question:
> do you think that there is a limit to how slow a photon frequency can be.
> iow
> a minimal energy to create a photon?
Perhaps there is such a limit, but so far we have found no evidence that
it exists, and no reason to think ot exists.
Bye,
Bjoern
Michael Moroney
>Y.Porat wrote:
>> have you ever thought about
>> *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
>A "photon wave" "lives" until it is absorbed. Isn't that obvious?
A photon's life time would be x/c, where x is the distance between where
it was created and where it is absorbed. I see no problem with x being
the diameter of the universe, and in fact the microwave background
radiation is photons that have existed since the Big Bang.
I believe in the reference frame of the photon there is no time passing,
as it moves at c, and time dilation is infinite.
>> is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
>> is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
The time since the Big Bang.
>> about my spelling:
>> i am not a native English speaker
>Well, I'm no native English speaker, too. So what? I nevertheless try to
> spell correctly - and I think I succeed in general.
Your English is far superior to my German! You do quite well.
>> even the letters are not even simmilar
>> and i dont use a spell checker because that editor hast one
>Has none? Or what did you intend to say here???
>So, why don't you simply use *another* editor?!?!?
Yes, *please* use a different editor with a spell checker.
>> and besides you see that every one understands my mainpoints
>> even with the mistakes.
That is not true. I have great difficulty trying to read your replies at
times.
>> my parents where born in Europ yet
>> all my family from my fathers side where murdered in the gass chambers
>> of europian educated people.
It is truly sad that you were affected by that horrible evil. :-(
>But: how is that relevant here?
>> (now you know why suggested that feuerbacher(and you)
>> will destroy me by sending me
>> to a gas chamber and make the 'final solusion of me'
>> it could save you a lot of my scintific nonsense.
That is absurd. Unless Bjoern is approaching retirement age, he didn't
even exist during that time. He only lives in the location where that
evil arose.
>No one ever suggested here killing you. Stop attacking this totally
>ridiculous straw man.
>IIRC, Michael said that he has got no formal education in physics, but
>other four *have* got such an education (AFAIK).
I don't have a _degree_ in physics. I tool physics in college as part
of the curriculum. My degree is in electrical engineering.
--
-Mike
Franz Heymann
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c65hsf$nfe$6...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> > news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > have you ever thought about
> > > *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
> >
> > Yes, often.
> >
> > > is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> > > is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
> >
> > It is a totally stable particle. It will last until it is
absorbed in
> > an inrteraction, however long that may take.
> > There are photons detected on earth which are more than
10,000,000,000
> > years old. There are also others detected here which are only a
few
> > nanoseconds old.
> --------------------------
> ok
> let me put it another way:
> what is the mechanism that creates photons in microcosm?
You are not putting the substantive issue in another way. You
areraising a new and irrelevant question, however the answer is that
there are more very many detailed mechanisms for generating photons,
all of which involve an interaction with the electromagnetic field in
such a way as to create an additional quantum in it.
What is this microcosm of which you speak?
> a secondary question:
> do you think that there is a limit to how slow a photon frequency
can be.
> iow
> a minimal energy to create a photon?
I know of no such lower limits to possible photon frequencies.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c65hsf$nfe$6...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> > news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > have you ever thought about
> > > *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
> >
> > Yes, often.
> >
> > > is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> > > is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
> >
> > It is a totally stable particle. It will last until it is
absorbed in
> > an inrteraction, however long that may take.
> > There are photons detected on earth which are more than
10,000,000,000
> > years old. There are also others detected here which are only a
few
> > nanoseconds old.
> ------------------------
> now another question:
> what is the slowest frequancy of a photon ever measured?
I have not the slightest idea.
I don't think there is much interest in competing for observing the
lowest frequency photon.
Franz
Michael Moroney
>mike
>btw
>you still didnt answer my question if you consider my book
>as crap and a waist of time to study it ?
>---------------
>Y.Porat
>------------------
It is more of what you have written here in the past, and nearly pure
speculation and thus not science. To be honest, I've been reading
sections while ignoring Bjoern's notes and noting problems, then going
back and reading his notes to see what I "missed".
--
-Mike
Y.Porat
why not much interest?
because the answer to that question is going to fail you suggestion
of a photon of icycle per year
btw i have a suggestion:
form now on lets call that historic photon on frantz nzme:
it will be called the 1 Frantz photon !
or may be the one F..... () photon (after the great genious
from hedelberg
(F is not by anyway after the word Fucker)
now i dint see anyway your answer to my question:
1) what is the microcosm mechanism that makes any pruduction of photons
are you afraied of that question ???!!!
if yes you may use the genius from hedelberg and then just parrot him
(since you have full confidence in anythying he sayes
and zero confidence to a cracpot Porat
so i am waiting for answers to my above questions.
just to remind
it is 2 questions
the second one was:
what was the loowest frequancy of a photon wave *measured* untill now
-------------
TIA
cracpot Y.Porat (non Phd)
--------------------------
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat schreef:
>
> > ------------------------
> > you see that is exactly an example of people who call themselves
> > scintists have no physics basic comonsense and touch:
> > have you ever thought about
> > *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
> > is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> > is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
> > -------
>
> Seeing that we can see the stars (several light years off) - I'd say
> well over a year.
>
> In fact since we see very-far-off stars (thousands of millions of light
> years) I'd say pretty darn well over a year.
>
>
> Jasper
see later
i improved my question that was at the firt place just
intuitive one
i was meaning to ask what it the creation time of a photon
say creation of one cycle
all photons are microcosm creations
even if one stupid mathematician will mention the movement of earth
around sun that might create em waves
it still will be a creation of the micro subparticles that are
in our globe
even while you create electrricity by a moving rottor
with say 50 hetz it is not just the movement of the rottor
that does the job it is :
*the movenet of sub particles in it - the electrons in it*
and do you know what is ther frequency of
harmonic movement of those electrons?
is it nanoseconds or may be YEARS ????!!!!
EM waives is not a creation of macrocosm
it is a criation of microcosm particles
even in the case where it seems crated from say stars
it is not the big star that creates them
it is the microcosm world inside that star
crackpot Y.Porat (non P_hd)
-----------------------
Eric Gisse
> fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > map...@012.net.il (Y.Porat) wrote in message news:<4e35159f.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > > fs...@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote in message news:<fd0fc2fa.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c55uhk$jm0$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> > > >
>
> > > > > Bjoern
> > > ------------------
> > > Mr Gisse
> > >
> > > lets examine that 'full of himself' that F acuses me:
> > > suppose that a young Phd of Hedelberg claimes persistantly
> > > (untill that very momernt that:
> > > *THERE IS A PHOTON WITH THE FREQUENCY OF -
> > > ONE CYCLE PER *** YEAR***
> > > he is a phd right?
> >
> > Until you explain why there can't be one, I see it as being entirely
> > possible.
> ------------------------
> you see that is exactly an example of people who call themselves scintists
> have no physics basic comonsense and touch:
> have you ever thought about
> *what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
> is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
Since you can't explain why there can't be one, and since I can't
explain why there can't be one, I will just assume there is the
possibility of one.
> -------
> it is more than obvious that your are personally biased in favour
> of Bjoern and against me
Not only that, but it is also true.
> just to remind you:
> you saied in one of the above article:
> i am too lazy to look up for it- it was somethinglike
> 'destroy him'
It took me 10 seconds to find the thread. I see you are no worse for
wear.
> is it a way of speach of a 'western civilized' as you put youself scintists
> or is it an expression of a personal ful of personal
> hatred - poslitics.?
No, I don't wish death on you. I wish you would learn about what you
are talking about.
> --------------
> >
> > >
> > > now comes an ananymous but famous cracpoy called Y.Porat
> > > and tells him that that is dumn mathmatician nonsense
> > > in more polite words:
> >
> > Notice how I can spell words correctly.
> >
> > You are neither anonymous nor famous.
> --------------
> about my spelling:
> i am not a native English speaker my native language if far away
> from it it is the language in which the Bible was orriginaly was written
> even the letters are not even simmilar
> and i dont use a spell checker because that editor hast one
> and besides you see that every one understands my mainpoints
> even with the mistakes.
> so probably mybeing a 'freighner' is a good reason for hating my guts.
No, I don't hate your guts. I think your ignorant and don't know it. I
might even say stupid.
> btw in spight your superiourty on me by your western education
> *my education is as well western* and most of our people consider themselves
> belong to the western world.
Then that means I can hold you to the same standard that I would hold
others to. For example, I expect people to be able to at least spell
scientific words if they are to use them - doubly so if they think
science is wrong.
[snip supposed personal history meant to invoke pity]
> >
> > >
> > > that is a masterpeace of a prove that one of the
> > > disasters that happened to modern scince is that
> > > mathematicians that have not the minimal 'physics touch'
> > > took over scince!!
> >
> > You can't even spell "proof", for fucks sake.
> -------------
> that petty ocupation with myspelling is a prove
> that you have nothing better against me.
It is spelled "proof". Right above you. You are a little late to the
game to start rewriting the english dictionary.
> --------------
> >
> > Yes math has taken over science - everyone knows that. People have
> > been trying to forumulate the physical world into math for centuries,
> > and it surprises me not a whit.
> >
> > Math is chosen because it works the best and you can make predictions
> > with it. I assume you have an alternative?
> ----------------
> yes
Where is it?
> maths is maths and physics is physics
> there is no authomatic o0verlapp between the two!!!
> once you have a mathematic formula it is at the beginning
> in most cases limitless*
> while the physical world has limits
> the roll of a real physicist is to find the limits
> that this physical reality is dictating
> and iwe find many cases in which physisist fail to do it
> the maxwell ( i am too lazy to see your spelling of that name
> because it is zero meaning if i write it corr3ctly or not)
> so that formula is another example of a case in which
> limits to it has to be found.
Zero meaning? I can understand that some subtleties of English may be
lost upon you. That does not excuse you from knowing how to spell
Maxwell, however. If you lack the drive to remember how to spell
Maxwell, what is the likelihood of you having anything important to
say about physics?
Does your attitude extend to equations, too?
> even if you take the say Coulomb formula for electric force
> the formula tells you that only at infinity it will be zero
> while in practice it is much less than infinity
> that it is zero. just an examp-le thar occures to me now.
> ---------------
> >
> > > and even a young pompous new phd thinks that once there is
> > > a maxwel formula you can spread its uses to any limits
> >
> > Do you know any of Maxwell's [notice the spelling] equations? Either
> > integral or vector form will do.
Is that a no?
> >
> > >
> > > and any case of physics that is ever possible
> > >
> > > and that pompus phd thinks that once he is a phd than
> > > anything he will say and claim and anything
> > > another one who is not a phd will say is apriory
> > > inferiour to what the phd will say
> >
> > When you, a obviously poorly educated person, start arguing particle
> > physics with a particle physics PhD...
> --------------------
> that is a remark of a biased person
Yes, yes it is.
> ( i neerly was tempted to say - an idiot - but No! i want say it)
Par for the course.
> you know nothing about me and my achievements and you make a stupid
> prejudice remark
I know enough to know that you prefer to invoke emotional responses
than actually discuss whats asked of you. How many times have I asked
you to explain why you can't have the aforementioned photon?
> a person who claimes that there is a photon wave with once cycle perytear
> is a parrot!! if you dont realise it now you will realize it later
I don't claim it exists, I claim it can exist because there is no
mechanism for it to not exist.
>
> there is one thing i must addmit i hate:
> i hate people who are more politiciance than scintists
"politicians", "scientists"
> and lack intellectual interrity
"intellectual integrity"
> keep well
> i can see that our discussion is apropory doomed by prejudice
"apriori"
> and in such a case it is a wast of time.
"waste"
Eric Gisse
[snip]
> Porat, the list of people who think that the orbit of the earth around
> the sun will create an electromagnetic wave with a frequency with 1/1
> year includes now:
>
> Franz Heymann
> Eric Gisse
> Michael Moroney
> Gordon D. Pusch
> me
Thats an entirely reasonable assumption, but not quite what I have
been saying. All I have wanted to hear is why that EM wave can't exist
- and since I haven't gotten an answer, I will assume it can exist.
>
> IIRC, Michael said that he has got no formal education in physics, but
> other four *have* got such an education (AFAIK). How many physicists do
> you need to tell you that this idea makes sense, until you finally admit
> that you may have been wrong?
Mine still crawls along. No degree yet, but it will be in Physics. Id
like to think I have the right mindset for thinking about the problem
even if I can't give a conclusive answer.
[snippy]
Franz Heymann
Of course you don't see it. Read my reply of 21/04/04 at 21.35
which you snipped.
> are you afraied of that question ???!!!
Read my reply of 21/04/04 at 21.35 which you snipped.
> if yes you may use the genius from hedelberg and then just parrot
him
> (since you have full confidence in anythying he sayes
> and zero confidence to a cracpot Porat
> so i am waiting for answers to my above questions.
> just to remind
> it is 2 questions
> the second one was:
> what was the loowest frequancy of a photon wave *measured* untill
now
Franz
Bjoern Feuerbacher
*grin*
If you discovered any problems additional to the ones I already noted
(or found a problem in what I wrote), please tell them!
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
Because that question isn't very relevant for anything?
> because the answer to that question is going to fail you suggestion
> of a photon of icycle per year
Huh?
> btw i have a suggestion:
> form now on lets call that historic photon on frantz nzme:
> it will be called the 1 Frantz photon !
Why do you make such a ridiculous suggestion???
Ask *any* physicists if he thinks that such a wave exists (or can
exist). I bet you won't find even *one* who says that it can't exist.
> or may be the one F..... () photon (after the great genious
> from hedelberg
> (F is not by anyway after the word Fucker)
I see that you still think that insults are arguments.
> now i dint see anyway your answer to my question:
> 1) what is the microcosm mechanism that makes any pruduction of photons
He answered that in another post. I answered that, too.
> are you afraied of that question ???!!!
No. You are simply to lazy or stupid to look up his and mine other posts.
[snip more insults and whining]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
> Jasper Stein <jasper...@cs.cs.kun.kun.nl.nl> wrote in message news:<c65mru$9d6$2...@wnnews.sci.kun.nl>...
>
>>Y.Porat schreef:
>>
>>
>>>------------------------
>>>you see that is exactly an example of people who call themselves
>>>scintists have no physics basic comonsense and touch:
>>>have you ever thought about
>>>*what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
>>>is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
>>>is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
>>>-------
>>
>>Seeing that we can see the stars (several light years off) - I'd say
>>well over a year.
>>
>>In fact since we see very-far-off stars (thousands of millions of light
>>years) I'd say pretty darn well over a year.
>>
>>
>>Jasper
>
> ---------------
> see later
> i improved my question that was at the firt place just
> intuitive one
You didn't "improve", it, you posed a totally different question.
> i was meaning to ask what it the creation time of a photon
Oh "life time" is the same as "creation time" for you?
Well, the "creation time" of a photon is the time at which it is
created. Strange question...
> say creation of one cycle
What on earth is that supposed to mean? Photons don't have "cycles".
> all photons are microcosm creations
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
> even if one stupid mathematician will mention the movement of earth
> around sun that might create em waves
Physicists, not mathematicians.
> it still will be a creation of the micro subparticles that are
> in our globe
Incomprehensible. "in our globe"??? Huh???
> even while you create electrricity by a moving rottor
> with say 50 hetz it is not just the movement of the rottor
> that does the job it is :
> *the movenet of sub particles in it - the electrons in it*
Well, yes. So what?????
> and do you know what is ther frequency of
> harmonic movement of those electrons?
Their frequency of movement around the axis is 50 Hz, since they are
"bound" in the rotor, which has tha frequency.
What "harmonic movement" are you talking about???
> is it nanoseconds or may be YEARS ????!!!!
You were talking about a frequency above. Frequencies aren't measured in
nanoseconds or years. Could you *please* try to write a bit more
consistenly?
Their frequency is 50 Hz. There may be other movements of the electrons
involved, with other frequencies, but since these are randomly
distributed, the waves created by these movements won't contribute much.
But *all* electrons move with the *same* frequency of 50 Hz around the
axis, so their effects add up, and in the end, you will essentially get
AC with a frequency of that 50 Hz.
> EM waives is not a creation of macrocosm
> it is a criation of microcosm particles
Well, right. So what???
> even in the case where it seems crated from say stars
> it is not the big star that creates them
> it is the microcosm world inside that star
Right. So what???
> crackpot Y.Porat (non P_hd)
Nice that you keep repeating that - so every lurker will at once notice
that you are not reliable.
Bye,
Bjoern
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Jasper Stein <jasper...@cs.cs.kun.kun.nl.nl> wrote in message news:<c65mru$9d6$2...@wnnews.sci.kun.nl>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat schreef:
> >>
> >>
> >>>------------------------
> >>>you see that is exactly an example of people who call themselves
> >>>scintists have no physics basic comonsense and touch:
> >>>have you ever thought about
> >>>*what is the *life time* of a photon wave ?.............
> >>>is it seconds? is it milliseconds?
> >>>is it a .........YEAR????!!!!!.
> >>>-------
> >>
> >>Seeing that we can see the stars (several light years off) - I'd say
> >>well over a year.
> >>
> >>In fact since we see very-far-off stars (thousands of millions of light
> >>years) I'd say pretty darn well over a year.
> >>
> >>
> >>Jasper
> >
> > ---------------
> > see later
> > i improved my question that was at the firt place just
> > intuitive one
>
> You didn't "improve", it, you posed a totally different question.
i will answer to another poster that is not an imbecil
Y.Porat (the non Phd and crackpot)
btw if i am a crqacpot what ould be mr f ??!!
----------------------------
Y.Porat
ok since you redirected me to that post i will anser here:
1 you are a master of mumbling and confuscating
while you know exactly what my question leads to:
since we agree that Em waves are creation of microcosm particcles
for instance electrons protons etc
it is created my their---listen carefully:
*by their harmonic motion* - the harmonic chatacter of the pruduct
ie the Em wave is a prove that it is crated my some harmonic movement
of those particles
now since those particles are *VERY SMALL* their 'natural or forced harmonic
movement cannot be with cycle period of even not seconds (i guess)
now it need to be a real fool to think that this micro movement
will ever have a period cycle of ...... i am ashemed even to mention it ......
now another more than indication:
as known physics means no much as long as it is not acompanied by ----
*observations*
so the natural question to ask now is :
based on observations .... what is the slowest frequency
even 8observed* ????!!! is it even close to one cycle per year??!!
can a responsible and serious scintist *evede* such a question???!!
(i spare you the insults that you bestowed on me
and that should come back to you like a boomerang!!
therefore my 'friendly'(though actually you are
an authomatic enemy of mine)
suggestion to you :
before you blindly trust the youg genious from hedelberg
and based on it showwer me with insults better use some thinking
of your own (if you still capable of unparrotong thinking.
TIA to Frantz from the cracpot Y.Porat
(to be acrqckpot among some of the poster here might actually
be a compliment for me )
----------------
--------------------
Bjoern Feuerbacher
What redirecting are you talking about?
> 1 you are a master of mumbling and confuscating
No. He gave a fairly clear answer.
> while you know exactly what my question leads to:
No. Your ways of thought are so strange that in general no one knows where
you might aim at.
> since we agree that Em waves are creation of microcosm particcles
I notice that you didn't answer Franz' question:
"What is this microcosm of which you speak?"
> for instance electrons protons etc
> it is created my their---listen carefully:
> *by their harmonic motion*
Completely unsupported assertion. Contradicted by the evidence, as
usual. Remember your own example of the "rotor" (electric generator)? If
the rotor rotates with a frequency of 50 Hz, you get AC with a frequency
of ... 50 Hz! A nice piece of evidence that the source of the electric
current in this example is *not* the "harmonic motion" of the elementary
particles, but simply their rotational movement around the axis of the
rotor.
BTW, for a harmonic motion, you need a force which grows proportional to
displacement. What force would that be?
> - the harmonic chatacter of the pruduct
> ie the Em wave is a prove that it is crated my some harmonic movement
> of those particles
No, not at all. Ever heard of "Fourier analysis"? *Every* time-dependent
function (*not* such "harmonic movements") can be expressed as a sum
(actually, an integral) of periodic functions.
If you have an em wave with one single frequency, you have a point - but
in *every* em wave ever measured, there was not only *one* frequency,
but a *mixture* of *different* frequencies (although in some
circumstances, e.g. a laser, the width of the frequency distribution is
rather tiny).
> now since those particles are *VERY SMALL* their 'natural or forced harmonic
> movement cannot be with cycle period of even not seconds (i guess)
"even not seconds"? Huh???
> now it need to be a real fool to think that this micro movement
> will ever have a period cycle of ...... i am ashemed even to mention it ......
Porat, the electrons and protons inside the earth go around the earth
with a period of one year. This generates an em wave with a frequency of
1/1 year, according to Maxwell's equations. There is nothing to be
"ashamed" about this simple prediction of these equations. If you think
these equations are wrong or don't apply here, feel free to present your
own equations with which one could replace Maxwell's equations.
> now another more than indication:
> as known physics means no much as long as it is not acompanied by ----
> *observations*
> so the natural question to ask now is :
> based on observations .... what is the slowest frequency
> even 8observed* ????!!! is it even close to one cycle per year??!!
I don't know.
But since one needs antennas to detect low-frequency em waves, and since
antennas usually aren't very long, I would suspect that the lowest
frequency ever detected is probably around 1 kHz.
> can a responsible and serious scintist *evede* such a question???!!
No one evaded this question here. What on earth are you talking about?
[snip whining]
> before you blindly trust the youg genious from hedelberg
I'm not a genius, and never claimed I am.
> and based on it showwer me with insults better use some thinking
> of your own (if you still capable of unparrotong thinking.
And you think you are able to distinguish if he is thinking on his own
or not?
> TIA to Frantz from the cracpot Y.Porat
> (to be acrqckpot among some of the poster here might actually
> be a compliment for me )
If you think so...
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
In other words: "I can't answer your questions and arguments, hence I
will simply insult you and flee."
> Y.Porat (the non Phd and crackpot)
Nice that you keep repeating that - so every lurker will at once notice
that you are not reliable.
> btw if i am a crqacpot what ould be mr f ??!!
A physicist.
Gordon D. Pusch
> But since one needs antennas to detect low-frequency em waves, and since
> antennas usually aren't very long, I would suspect that the lowest
> frequency ever detected is probably around 1 kHz.
On the contrary, antennae certainly _can_ detect wavelengths much longer
than their physical size --- they simply won't detect them _efficiently_!
Look up the derivation of the "antenna gain" for a so-called "point dipole"
(i.e., dipole or loop that is much smaller that the incident wavelength);
while small, it is _not_ zero!
In principle, arbitrarily small frequecies can be detected by any antenna.
in practice, detection will be limited by thermal noise, but such noise can
be made arbitrarily small by cooling the antenna, amplifier, and detector.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Y.Porat
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c68e25$t80$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>>Jasper Stein <jasper...@cs.cs.kun.kun.nl.nl> wrote in message news:<c65mru$9d6$2...@wnnews.sci.kun.nl>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > i will answer to another poster that is not an imbecil
>
> In other words: "I can't answer your questions and arguments, hence I
> will simply insult you and flee."
>
>
>
> A physicist.
------------------
-------------
crackpot Porat
--------------------
Franz Heymann
Why should they undergo harmonic motion?
A fast electron moving in a straight line at constant speed (as near
as dammit) in a tenuous gas will produce Cerenkov light.
A fast electron moving steadily in a circular orbit in a magnetic
field will produce Synchrotron radiation.
A fast electron deflected once through a sharp angle in a collission
with a heavy nucleus will produce bremsstrahlung
Where are the "harmonic" motions of those electrons?
- the harmonic chatacter of the pruduct
> ie the Em wave is a prove that it is crated my some harmonic
movement
> of those particles
You are importing classical ideas into the quantum domain. It usually
goes wrong.
> now since those particles are *VERY SMALL* their 'natural or forced
harmonic
> movement cannot be with cycle period of even not seconds (i guess)
Nonsense. If I suspend a magnet from a 10 metre long string and allow
it to swing like a pendulum, it will produce a periodic magnetic field
with a period of approximately 0.16 Hz, and 0.16 Hz photons will be
radiated from it.
> now it need to be a real fool to think that this micro movement
> will ever have a period cycle of ...... i am ashemed even to mention
it ......
Who says that the movenemt of electrons has to be restricted to
oscillatory motions of high frequency?
I have given you some examples above, and I am not ashamed of having
done so.
By the way you have now said many words in which you have still not
said what the microcosm is. I thought that was what you said you
would do. Surely you could formulate it in one sentence? My problem
is that the amount you have written so far is in danger of exceeding
my attention span.
>
> now another more than indication:
> as known physics means no much as long as it is not acompanied
by ----
> *observations*
> so the natural question to ask now is :
> based on observations .... what is the slowest frequency
> even 8observed* ????!!! is it even close to one cycle per year??!!
I have answered that before. I don't know, and I don't care. There
is no worth while knowledge wrapped up in the mere fact of what the
lowest observed frequency might be. What is more to the point is that
you should produce a quantitative reason as to why you believe there
should be some cut-off frequency.
>
> can a responsible and serious scintist *evede* such a question???!!
I am a responsible and a serious scientist. I have no interest at all
in what the answer might be.
You also claim to be a responsible and aerious scientist. Perhaps you
can answer the question?
> (i spare you the insults that you bestowed on me
I have never, never, insulted you. I have only given objectively true
assessments of your lack of intellect.
> and that should come back to you like a boomerang!!
> therefore my 'friendly'(though actually you are
> an authomatic enemy of mine)
> suggestion to you :
> before you blindly trust the youg genious from hedelberg
> and based on it showwer me with insults better use some thinking
> of your own (if you still capable of unparrotong thinking.
Take a running jump at yourself.
Franz
Franz Heymann
>
> But since one needs antennas to detect low-frequency em waves, and
since
> antennas usually aren't very long, I would suspect that the lowest
> frequency ever detected is probably around 1 kHz.
You can detect a 50 Hz hum from power lines at quite a distance from
the lines.
[snip]
Franz
Gordon D. Pusch
...Although what one is detecting in that case is not (strictly speaking)
an "EM wave," since one is still in the "near field" zone if one is much
closer than a wavelength or so (<~6000 km) to the power line...
...Which is not to say that the EM wave radiated by a power line is _not_
detectable --- only that the detector would need to be several earth-radii
out before one can unambiguously say that one is detecting "radiation" rather
than mere "induction"...
Y.Porat
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> message news:c6anm0$bkg$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
> >
> > But since one needs antennas to detect low-frequency em waves, and
> since
> > antennas usually aren't very long, I would suspect that the lowest
> > frequency ever detected is probably around 1 kHz.
i dont know why but ......
a frequency of one hertz
*sounds very interesting for me ...............!!!*
>
> You can detect a 50 Hz hum from power lines at quite a distance from
> the lines.
just to remind you :
50 hertz is quicker than 1 hertz !!!!
i was asking about the *slowest* frequency ever detected
dishonest crackpoy Y.Porat
--------------------------------
>
> [snip]
>
> Franz
Franz Heymann
"Gordon D. Pusch" <g_d_pusch_remo...@xnet.com> wrote in
message news:gi4qrax...@pusch.xnet.com...
Whilst I accept your point, it is nevertheless valid to think of that
detector as intercepting off-shell photons which would otherwise have
been reabsorbed by the power lines. (Not that that would be within
Porat's horizon of understranding)
Franz
Franz Heymann
news:<c6bsim$jqk$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
[snip]
> > You can detect a 50 Hz hum from power lines at quite a distance
from
> > the lines.
>
> just to remind you :
> 50 hertz is quicker than 1 hertz !!!!
> i was asking about the *slowest* frequency ever detected
I have told you previously that I don't know and I don't care.
Franz
Grey Knight
> > what is the slowest frequancy of a photon ever measured?
> I have not the slightest idea.
> I don't think there is much interest in competing for observing the
> lowest frequency photon.
IIRC, there is a device called a "down-converter" which 'splits' a
photon into two photons of half the frequency each. Do these devices
work on photons of *any* frequency, or least on arbitrarily small
freqs? If so, it would constitute a proof that there is no
lowest-frequency photon that any idiot can understand; similar to the
unorderable nature of the real numbers (What is the smallest real
number greater than zero? For any answer you give, I can give a
smaller number simply by dividing it by two!).
Y.Porat
of course you dont care!!
becuse you are a decent scintist
(may be it should be one cycle per tear??!!)
-------------
dishonest crackpot - Y.Porat
----------------------------------
hanson
in message news:c6d84j$cie$6...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> "Gordon D. Pusch" <g_d_pusch_remo...@xnet.com>
wrote in > message news:gi4qrax...@pusch.xnet.com...
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> writes:
> > > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> > > message news:c6anm0$bkg$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> > >> But since one needs antennas to detect low-frequency em waves,
> > >> and since antennas usually aren't very long, I would suspect that
> > >> the lowest frequency ever detected is probably around 1 kHz.
> > >
> > > You can detect a 50 Hz hum from power lines at quite a distance
> > > from the lines.
> >
> > ...Although what one is detecting in that case is not (strictly
> > speaking) an "EM wave," since one is still in the "near field"
> > zone if one is much closer than a wavelength or so
> > (<~6000 km) to the power line...
> > ...Which is not to say that the EM wave radiated by a power
> > line is _not_ detectable --- only that the detector would need
> > to be several earth-radii out before one can unambiguously
> > say that one is detecting "radiation" rather than mere
> > "induction"...
>
> Whilst I accept your point, it is nevertheless valid to think of that
> detector as intercepting off-shell photons which would otherwise
> have been reabsorbed by the power lines.
> (Not that that would be within Porat's horizon of understranding)
>
> > i was asking about the *slowest* frequency ever detected
[hanson]
If Björn's low-frequency em waves are Franz's off-shell photons,
then Gordy's radiation turns into induction as a limit case.
It is axiomatic that when a static electric field collapses a
magnetic filed arises, which when it collapses gives rise to
the next electric field, and such repetitions are said to be em
waves. And since em waves are supposed to be photons by an
other name it follows that the slowest frequency ever detected
were done by the guys who were holding the voltage of their
electrostatic fields constant for the longest time. Now, who were
those folk........ahahahaha........ahahahanson
Gordon D. Pusch
> "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c66lu2$rc0$2...@titan.btinternet.com>...
>> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
>> news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
>>> now another question:
>>> what is the slowest frequancy of a photon ever measured?
>>
>> I have not the slightest idea.
>> I don't think there is much interest in competing for observing the
>> lowest frequency photon.
>
> IIRC, there is a device called a "down-converter" which 'splits' a
> photon into two photons of half the frequency each.
Actually, it exploits nonlinear optical effects occuring in condensed matter
to absorb a photon and re-emit two photons.
> Do these devices work on photons of *any* frequency, or least on
> arbitrarily small freqs?
I would expect that, because they exploit non-linear optical interactions
with the electrons bound to atomic or crystalline condensed matter, they
are likely limited to wavelengths not much longer than infrared. However,
there are bulk electronic circuits called "frequency dividers" that perform
essentially the same function, and how low they can go is limited only by
the sizes of the capacitors, inductors, and resistors you can get to build
the output bandpass filters out of.
> If so, it would constitute a proof that there is no lowest-frequency
> photon that any idiot can understand; similar to the unorderable nature
> of the real numbers (What is the smallest real number greater than zero?
> For any answer you give, I can give a smaller number simply by dividing
> it by two!).
This is the fundamental problem in this thread: Porat is too stupid to
understand the concept of a "fraction," and therefore _refuses_ to believe
that times shorter than one second can exist --- despite the counterexample
represented by, e.g., any digital watch with a split-second lap-timer built in...
Franz Heymann
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:6Xvic.7465$eZ5....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
You have a point. But it is too sharp for Porat.
Franz
>
Y.Porat
Franzy
as i saied many times you are a mantsr croock
is the above 'in your horizons' ??!!
see what Gordy told you:
'..Which is not to say that the EM wave radiated by a power line is
> _not_
> > detectable --- only that the detector would need to be several
> earth-radii
> > out before one can unambiguously say that one is detecting
> "radiation" rather
> > than mere "induction"...'
--------------
Franzy *do you have* a detector of several earth radii??
can you measure it ???
as long you cant measure it
you are in *OBFUSCATION LAND**
every one can fill in his assumptions
and *speculations* -but that is no prove
and if i unsestood well
that you cannot say *unambiguously* that you are detecting
'radiation' or rather mere *'induction'*
so in obfuscation land
you feel youself as a *fish in vague water*
now common demagogue and answer the question:
what is the slower *photon wave* ever measured unambigously??!!
we are not talking about a scramnle phenomena
of *many or multy fatored case*
we are talking about a single clear cut case not
a *scramble* of many phenomena together in which you cant
find out your hands or legs.
one of the techniques of a lyer is to complicate the case
and dragg it farther away from the clear cut point.
-------------
dishonest (lyer) crackpot) - Y.porat
------------------
Franz Heymann
As you will no doubt also say ad nauseam in future, but with
up-to-date spelling and grammar mistakes, no doubt.
> see what Gordy told you:
I did. I answered him. Can you read?
[snip the incessant whining]
Franz
Franz
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > >
> > --------------------
> > Franzy
> > as i saied many times you are a mantsr croock
> > is the above 'in your horizons' ??!!
>
> As you will no doubt also say ad nauseam in future, but with
> up-to-date spelling and grammar mistakes, no doubt.
>
> > see what Gordy told you:
>
> I did. I answered him. Can you read?
>
> [snip the incessant whining]
>
> Franz
yess i can read
here it is :
'Whilst I accept your point, it is nevertheless valid to think of that
detector as intercepting off-shell photons which would otherwise have
been reabsorbed by the power lines. (Not that that would be within
Porat's horizon of understranding)
Franz
----------------
Frantzy
do you think that all people of this ng are idiots
that you can fool them around forever??
is that an answer of a scinrist/
or may be of a croock??!!
do *you * understand what you wrote there??
'the detector is intercepting off shell photons!!'
what are those of shell photons and how they are intercepting
and what is that otherwise absorbtion and 'reabsorbtion'
what is the evidence for it and where are the measurments of it.
of course it is out of porats understanding
because it is out of your understanding as well!
ask someone else if he can explain what you saied!
-
and the bottom line is that you didnt answer my question:
what is the slowest photon wave frequency that was ever measured??
do you think that your mumbling will obfuscate the question??
is it one cycle per year?
or may be even slower say one cycle per a millium
i bet you can prove it is one cycle per a millenium.
but can you prove you are a decent scintist??
or may be decency is not at all in your vocabulary?
as someone saied once:
decency is an invention of the miserable people
ie supermans do not need decency
i think superman in German is something like Ubermensch (spelling?)
(and how is it in Africans ??)
-----------
undecent crackpot - Y.Porat
-----------------------
---------------------
Franz Heymann
No. However, you certainly do not have the knowledge to understand my
reply to Gordon, exactly as I predicted
> is that an answer of a scinrist/
> or may be of a croock??!!
It was a flawless answer from a physicist.
> do *you * understand what you wrote there??
Quite fully.
> 'the detector is intercepting off shell photons!!'
Yes, the detector involved is intercepting off-shell photons
associated with the currents flowing in the power line.
> what are those of shell photons
They are what one macroscopically and classically sees as the electric
and magnetic fields of surrounding the power lines.
> and how they are intercepting
They are not intercepting anything. Some of them are intercepted by
the detector.
>
> and what is that otherwise absorbtion and 'reabsorbtion'
An off-shell photon must be either reabsorbed quite quickly by
whatever emitted it, except if it is intercepted by a detecting
device. That is an important feature which distinguishes it from a
photon which is propagated freely.
> what is the evidence for it and where are the measurments of it.
It depends on the type of detector in use. If it is a search coil
oriented appropriately, an EMF will be generated in it by the
intercepted off-shell photons.
> of course it is out of porats understanding
That goes without saying.
> because it is out of your understanding as well!
No, it is not. You see, I am quite familiar with the basics of QED .
> ask someone else if he can explain what you saied!
No need. I really do understand what I said.
> and the bottom line is that you didnt answer my question:
> what is the slowest photon wave frequency that was ever measured??
I have answered it quite unambiguously. Quit whining about it and go
and look up what I said. I am damned if I will repeast it here just
for your convenience.
> do you think that your mumbling will obfuscate the question??
> is it one cycle per year?
> or may be even slower say one cycle per a millium
> i bet you can prove it is one cycle per a millenium.
> but can you prove you are a decent scintist??
> or may be decency is not at all in your vocabulary?
> as someone saied once:
> decency is an invention of the miserable people
> ie supermans do not need decency
> i think superman in German is something like Ubermensch (spelling?)
> (and how is it in Africans ??)
I leave your usual mindless whining for others to laugh at as well.
Franz
Y.Porat
Frantzy will nevr addmit being defeated by a crackpot
he and the other young farter Fuerebacher (the two Phds)
that nominated themselves as a thought police of this Ng
and (therefore demanded me to leave it-of course
their authority and life here could be prosperous without me!!)
cannot aford being defeated by an ananymous crackpot
so cheating is their last weapon
now comes the question?
are those two croockes worthy of being the thought police
of that Ng???!!
----------
so may be someone else will answer the simple question:
what is the slowest photon wave ever detected (measured)?
obviously the answer to that question is just
*one figure*
there is no need for much obfuscation mumbling
the second question is ;
can it be (after all the discussions that we did here-
one cycle per year ??
---------
TIA
dishonest crackpot
Y.Porat
----------------
Y.Porat
> map...@012.net.il (Y.Porat) writes:
>
> >mike
> >btw
> >you still didnt answer my question if you consider my book
> >as crap and a waist of time to study it ?
> >---------------
> >Y.Porat
> >------------------
>
> It is more of what you have written here in the past, and nearly pure
> speculation and thus not science. To be honest, I've been reading
> sections while ignoring Bjoern's notes and noting problems, then going
> back and reading his notes to see what I "missed".
did you went all over it?
do you realy understand it?!!
will you casll it crap
and will you say that it is not worthy studying it?
did you discussed it with me to clarify questions??
do you understand properly the 3d structures?
did you unserdtood the chemical, crystaline, nuclear,
cross verifications?
--------------
Y.Porat
-------------
Y.Porat
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<c65g3c$9e7$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Porat, the list of people who think that the orbit of the earth around
> > the sun will create an electromagnetic wave with a frequency with 1/1
> > year includes now:
> >
> > Franz Heymann
> > Eric Gisse
> > Michael Moroney
> > Gordon D. Pusch
> > me
>
> Thats an entirely reasonable assumption, but not quite what I have
> been saying. All I have wanted to hear is why that EM wave can't exist
> - and since I haven't gotten an answer, I will assume it can exist.
---------------------------
good for you Gisee you behave as a decent scintist
now please notice Mr F behaviour:
he was recruting you into a list whithout your permission
thats the man and that shis behaviour!
now to your question why one cycle per year is nonsens:
i repeat:
Em waives are a creation of *microcosm* not macrocosm
the cases that it 'seema' to be by macrocosm are just misleadings!
the em wave is created while microcosm particles like electrons
Protons etc are *vibrating harmonically* and by that harmonic
motion creating a constant procession of harmonic natured waves.
(it is some inner harmonic collision or 'friction' that cuses those
entities (whtever they are we are not getting into it now))
so we have to ask ourselves :
what is the frequency of those harmonic moving particles?
is it very quick or is it very slow?
we know from observations that the smaller the particle is
the quicker is its harmonic motion
(i sudyed it thoroughly due to me engineering practice by
analysis of earthquake analysys - so you see that surprisingly
enough a crackpot engineer can see sometimes thigs from
angles that a 'common establishment parrot' did think about
iow an engineer can somethimes enlight problems in an unexpected way
or not a common authomatic 'usual' way)
so we know from more genral cases that
the smaller the physical entity- the quicker is its harminic motion
(actually even a secondart schjool boy should know it
the only point is to *mension it at the right moment*)
so the harmonic motion of electrons and protons is ........
nmo need to go on with it.
it is certainly not one year (one year becomes actually reduculous
in light of what i mentioned above.
even while you move macro entities
it is not the macro entity that emmits em waves
it is the micro particles that do the job.
i think i made a point
Y.Porat
----------------
>
> >
> > IIRC, Michael said that he has got no formal education in physics, but
> > other four *have* got such an education (AFAIK). How many physicists do
> > you need to tell you that this idea makes sense, until you finally admit
> > that you may have been wrong?
>
> Mine still crawls along. No degree yet, but it will be in Physics. Id
> like to think I have the right mindset for thinking about the problem
> even if I can't give a conclusive answer.
>
> [snippy]
Y.Porat
> greyk...@yahoo.com (Grey Knight) writes:
>
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c66lu2$rc0$2...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> >> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> >> news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >>> now another question:
> >>> what is the slowest frequancy of a photon ever measured?
> >>
> >> I have not the slightest idea.
> >> I don't think there is much interest in competing for observing the
> >> lowest frequency photon.
> >
> > I
>
> with the electrons bound to atomic or crystalline condensed matter, they
> are likely limited to wavelengths not much longer than infrared. However,
> there are bulk electronic circuits called "frequency dividers" that perform
> essentially the same function, and how low they can go is limited only by
> the sizes of the capacitors, inductors, and resistors you can get to build
> the output bandpass filters out of.
>
>
> > If so, it would constitute a proof that there is no lowest-frequency
> > photon that any idiot can understand; similar to the unorderable nature
> > of the real numbers (What is the smallest real number greater than zero?
> > For any answer you give, I can give a smaller number simply by dividing
> > it by two!).
>
> This is the fundamental problem in this thread: Porat is too stupid to
> understand the concept of a "fraction," and therefore _refuses_ to believe
> that times shorter than one second can exist --- despite the counterexample
> represented by, e.g., any digital watch with a split-second lap-timer built in...
>
>
> -- Gordon D. Pusch
Mr pusch
who was talking about 'time shorter than one second????
i was talking about a frequancy of more than one second per cycle
9one second per cycle if you dont mind has a wave length of
300000 km
now about 'fractions'
if you have a farctioned em wave how is it done??
is it the originally wave that came in - coming out??
once you have it procecced by anyway to change its frequency
*it is no more the same photon *
am i right?
now lets heare it from you loud and clear:
do you think there is a photon wave with one cycle per year??
and wheere wass it detected
2 what is the slowest photon wave that was ever detected??
if not detected it is all *SPECULATIONS*
am i right ?
crackpot obfuscator - Y.Porat
--------------------------
>
>
Grey Knight
>
> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c66lu2$rc0$2...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> >> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> >> news:4e35159f.04042...@posting.google.com...
> >>> now another question:
> >>> what is the slowest frequancy of a photon ever measured?
> >>
> >> I have not the slightest idea.
> >> I don't think there is much interest in competing for observing the
> >> lowest frequency photon.
> >
> > IIRC, there is a device called a "down-converter" which 'splits' a
> > photon into two photons of half the frequency each.
>
> Actually, it exploits nonlinear optical effects occuring in condensed matter
> to absorb a photon and re-emit two photons.
Ahh, I figured it wasn't a literal "split". ;D
> > Do these devices work on photons of *any* frequency, or least on
> > arbitrarily small freqs?
>
> I would expect that, because they exploit non-linear optical interactions
> with the electrons bound to atomic or crystalline condensed matter, they
> are likely limited to wavelengths not much longer than infrared. However,
> there are bulk electronic circuits called "frequency dividers" that perform
> essentially the same function, and how low they can go is limited only by
> the sizes of the capacitors, inductors, and resistors you can get to build
> the output bandpass filters out of.
... and then you could attach a transmitter to output an EM wave of
the resulting frequency?
> > If so, it would constitute a proof that there is no lowest-frequency
> > photon that any idiot can understand; similar to the unorderable nature
> > of the real numbers (What is the smallest real number greater than zero?
> > For any answer you give, I can give a smaller number simply by dividing
> > it by two!).
>
> This is the fundamental problem in this thread: Porat is too stupid to
> understand the concept of a "fraction," and therefore _refuses_ to believe
> that times shorter than one second can exist --- despite the counterexample
> represented by, e.g., any digital watch with a split-second lap-timer built in...
Hmm, talking about uncountable sets is probably not going to be a
productive line of argument then...
Grey Knight
> Franzy *do you have* a detector of several earth radii??
> can you measure it ???
> as long you cant measure it
> you are in *OBFUSCATION LAND**
> every one can fill in his assumptions
> and *speculations* -but that is no prove
> and if i unsestood well
Well, if you want to go down *THAT* road, you can't even conclusively
prove that other people exist, much less electromagnetic fields.
Trying to consider what properties a fictional "observer" might
measure in such a fictional "field" is beyond mere mortal
comprehension.
http://www.google.com/search?q=solipsism
Traditionally, physicists have left such questions of absolute proof
up to the philosophers (and mathematicians ;P) and focussed on
assuming that people and electromagnetic fields *DO* exist; they then
go on to construct models of these phenomena and check how well they
predict experimental results. Our current best model of EM fields
works very well, and does *NOT* predict any limitation on the
frequency of an electromagnetic wave. This has been verified within
the limitations of our current technology, so we have no reason to
suppose that any such limit exists, the absence of any concrete
examples of undetectable waves nonwithstanding.
If some future advance in technology gave us an ultra-super-duper-low
frequency EM detector which revealed the prescence of a lower
frequency limit, the theory of EM fields would need to be re-worked.
However, it will remain INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.