| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"tony fleming" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2005 01:25:16 AM |
| Object: |
maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
bjeorn on his very best behaviour politely asked me to outline the
usage of maxwell's eqns and how they apply to in self-field theory
(SFT); let's just first address what self-fields (self-force,
self-energy) are. A mathematical description for the self-forces of
charged particles was first derived by Abraham in 1903 and Lorentz in
1904 [Jackson, pp. 750-755]. This is the effect upon a moving charge of
any back-reaction due to its own radiating field.
J.D. Jackson, Classical electrodynamics, 3rd Edition, (John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1999)
Now this yields a diverent expression for the self-energy, and as
explained by Jackson and Heitler, this divergence is not addressed by
quantum mechanical treatment.
W. Heitler, The quantum theory of radiation, (Dover, New York, NY,
1984)
so how then does SFT differ? first, let me explain what a
zero-radiation antenna is. as the name infers, there is a condition
for the frequency in Von Hippel's derivation of the radiation fields in
the far-field of a hertzian dipole whereby the components can be made
to cancel IFF we have ANOTHER dipole set perpendicularly to the
original antenna. now we need to understand that this dipole antenna
is a LOOP antenna so that the antenna conductors and the surrounding
medium are the same medium (a loop NOT a dipole) so this in essence
demonstrates that there is a physics that says we can have EM fields
INSIDE an object while there exist NO radiation away from it. this
occurs when there is NO NETT RADIATION, so components of the far-field
are cancelled out by the presence of other fields. this issue of
zero-radiation is discussed in my thesis (monash).
A. Von Hippel, Dielectrics and waves, (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
1962)
A.H.J. Fleming, "Can a cross-dipole sustain a standing wave?", in
draft, 2004.
when we use maxwell's equations we use the same functional field form
as used by von hippel; these are rotating vectors r_o*exp(jwt); very
briefly, when we insert the correct centre-of-motion fields into
Maxwell's equations, we get (like FDM) a system of equations to solve.
if we try too use lagrangians eother classically or using QFT, then we
get NOWHERE, we need to use the self-field theory with the centre-of
motion fields, and hence without HUP
thus this self-field solution of maxwell's equations HAS NOT BEEN
PERFORMED PREVIOUSLY by quantum field theory, OR by classical theory.
QED
i shall leave it at that for now, to see what bones bjeorn wants to
pick over.
.
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
29 Aug 2005 07:24:47 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
bjeorn on his very best behaviour politely asked me to outline the
usage of maxwell's eqns and how they apply to in self-field theory
(SFT);
No, I asked you, *several times*, to address the error which I pointed
out you made in using Maxwell's equations. Do you have severe reading
comprehension problems, or are you deliberately misrepresenting me?
[snip rant]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
29 Aug 2005 11:38:42 AM |
|
|
well i WAS being facetious!!, it's obvious you know nothing about
self-field theory, exactly what IS this 'error' you have pointed out
'several times? and why using SFT do i get the correct answer for the
motions of the electron in hydrogen atom? answer me that.is this some
'lucky fluke??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 03:23:39 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
well i WAS being facetious!!, it's obvious you know nothing about
self-field theory,
I know close to nothing about your so-called "theory", indeed. So
what? That doesn't change the fact that right from the start, you
demonstrated that you don't even understand Maxwell's equations.
exactly what IS this 'error' you have pointed out
'several times?
*sigh* Say, can't you read at all? You quoted the argument in the OP
to your thread "SFT is a quantized field, QFT is a classical 'field'".
I'll provide the argument again for convenience; try actually reading
it this time.
<http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf>
The Maxwell equations (1a) to (1d) on which [you base your] whole
paper are already formulated in a wrong way: the charge and current
density [you use] here make no sense at all. [You say that you
consider] consider *discrete* particles; this implies that the charge
and current densities have to be non-zero only in certain regions of
space (for point particles, they have to be sums of delta functions).
In contrast, the charge and current densities [you use] here are
non-zero *everywhere*, i.e. what [you consider] is a space filled
homogeneously with charge and current!!!
and why using SFT do i get the correct answer for the
motions of the electron in hydrogen atom?
Err, you merely *claim* that yours is the "correct answer for the
motions". You haven't *shown* in any way that your answer is correct.
That you get the spectrum right (apparently) is no big deal; I've seen
*lots* of cranks already who got the spectrum right.
And you keep ignoring that the Rydberg formula is only an
*approximation*, that the *real* spectrum is *far* more complex,
includes things like fine structure, hyper fine structure, Lamb shift
etc. All these effects are explained by QED. If you also can achieve
that, then you start to have a point. Until you don't: stop bragging.
answer me that.is this some 'lucky fluke??
I already answered that. Apparently you *really* can't read at all.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 05:44:51 AM |
|
|
poor bjeorn being asked to supply what he's never supplied before!!
you're a petty liar, bjeorn!! you haven't read the hydrogen paper at
all; all those effects you claim are left out have been placed into one
eigenvalue problem, the whole hydrogen problem has been recast into a
FINITE EIGENVALUE problem, not an infinite eigenvalue problem as per
QFT with its CONTINUOUS COULOMB-LIKE FIELD and hence its fog of HUP
'unkowledge'. there was a host of other issues to report including the
links between SFT and SNSFT, not just an endless list of data for the
hydrogen atom data; but mention was made to the fine structure and
other QED results; more than that SFT was readied for the next stage,
as a unifying field theory. there's a really big clear picture with
SFT bjeorn, much clearer than is the corresponding view of physics
using QFT. (but i guess to you this is just word salad huh? yeah
you're a complete and utter dummie; you wouldn't know the truth when
its hitting you around the head)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 06:48:06 AM |
|
|
the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays. the
paper is much the same as can be downloaded at www.unifiedphysics.com.
i guess those who have invested years of study and effort to QFT will
like bjeorn, be absolutely hostile to any advances in our mathematical
and physical knowledge. as i say the proof of the SFT method is in the
pudding, those who don't want to see will not be shown by me or anyone
else; as is found in the good book, "there's none so blind, as those
who will not see".
actually the SFT method is quite straightforward, and follows QFT quite
closely, and as i've said ad neaseum (thanks, autymn), the analogy
between the finite element method (FEM) which employs langrangian
density functions and shape functions to numerically solve partial
differential equations (PDE's), and the finite difference method (FDM)
which uses suitable trial functions variables directly to a set of
PDE's, is a very good one; i can only suggest anyone seriously wanting
to use SFT, should study these numerical methods. they really do give
a good rationale to SFT and QFT, and the advantages of both; although
as i have also said ad neaseum, QFT uses the old COULOMB-LIKE fields of
the classical physics, and this induces an innacurcy.which we currently
know as heisenberg uncertainty principle.
i will introduce a new thread soon on the centre-of-motion fields used
by SFT and why they are an advantage over the old coulomb-like fields
of QFT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 10:18:44 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays.
I wondered what physics journal would publish that stuff. Then I went
to the homepage of "Physics Essays" and simply looked at the titles of
some of the other articles they have published in the last months. And
realized that the peer review for this journal probably isn't that good...
Doing a Google search through sci.physics further confirmed that.
E.g. Steve Carlip, a physicist whose judgement I highly trust, called
"Physics Essays" a "fringe" journal and placed it on the same level as
Galilean Electrodynamics (see the post with Message-ID
459udo$25p@mark.ucdavis.edu).
So, in your place, I wouldn't keep boasting that my paper will get
published in "Physics Essays". That isn't much of a compliment for
your work...
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 11:46:20 AM |
|
|
bjeorn you don't know how NOT to be inflamatory!! very annoying,
you're not a quiet considerate person, and one can't really discuss
anything in that tennis style of yours. it all becomes emotions and not
a considered discussion.
your argumeents are so basely pernicious, as to be trivial and
insulting. nothing of any merit at all in even trying to discuss with
you because you're so obsessively paranoidly defensive about your
precious QFT; realise that the day has arrived when it's fields have
had their use-by-date. another method has arrived and this is just the
beginning, more will see its advantages, regardless of your
blusterings, and babblings. so be quiet, put your silly pen down and
give your brains a go, not your emotions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightlight" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 12:35:37 PM |
|
|
You may be rediscovering what Asim Barut's Self-Field Eletrodynamics
has already achieved in more general form, which is the same approach
advocated by Lorentz in old QM, then by Scrodinger, Fermi and Einstein
in late 1920s (revived later E.T. Jaynes in 1970s and developed further
by Barut in 1980s). The subject of self-fields came up in recent
sci.phsyics.reserach thread, where several useful references were
posted:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/1e3ae3b3697948db?tvc=1&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/1e3ae3b3697948db?tvc=1&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "nightlight" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 01:32:46 PM |
|
|
The Barut's Self-field ED references links I posted above don't seem to
go to the specific messages. Here is another try:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/386f48731520d145?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/72bb58a80af02070?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/13a2927e9514ad5c?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/13a2927e9514ad5c?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/a076288f8eaddb6e?hl=en&
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 08:38:06 PM |
|
|
thanks nightlight for that info; i think we owe those early folk
including abraham and lorentz, a big debt; as i said, this self-field
'issue' has been problematic for classical and quantum mechanics; it
has been a break-through via my antenna work to realise that the
original herzian dipole could be reworked into a 'cross-dipole' where
the radiation fields in each orthogonal antenna can, with a suitable
phase difference between them, cancel each out so that NO NETT
RADIATION occurs in the far-field of this composite antenna ( a
cross-dipole loop antenna btw). so this in effect is a 'self-field'
for a composite working antenna; not a very efficient antenna, but it
may have a lot of uses, including security and health and safety.
i have an esoteric barut reference from a "summer college" course of
lectures given at university of Colorada, given by Barut and a number
of others in a proceedings titled "Lectures in theoretical physics, Vol
4", interscience, 1962, "Dispersion relations and resonance scattering"
in which he details the type of techniques he was using at that time.
as such it doesn't specifically discuss self-fields, but it is a very
interesting historical document for those who want to see what was
known , and not known, within QFT at that time.
of interest to our discussion about coulomb fields here, he does
discuss the coulomb potential and demonstrates
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 08:52:20 PM |
|
|
sorry, cut myself off!!
he (barut) does discuss the coulomb potential and demonstrates the
functional analyticity of this potential for arbitrarily large
distance.
i guess my point is made that QFT uses potential functions that consist
at their heart of continuous function except for the important analytic
singularities (poles and zeroes in the complex plane).
in self-field theory as in my hydrogen paper, since we don't use
potentials, we don't have the (same) mathematical problems, including
renormalization; not a trivial observation, as i'm sure you'll agree.
i have used QFT myself in my career (mainly out of curiosity and
self-education), and have grown up in a working environment of its
usage by colleagues, so i'm well aware of its effectiveness and its
limitations.
heisenberg's uncertainty principle is the bane of the telephone
companies; and i'm sure they will be interested in this new insight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 09:07:37 PM |
|
|
i think what stands out when we see the level of complexity used within
barut's QFT self-field theory, is how simple the more direct approach
detailed within the hydrogen paper in comparison. anyone who has been
involved in finite element modelling (and its usage is fairly well
across the technological spectrum) would know how similar to QFT are
the lagrangian techniques and the methods of solving integral equation
problems in general.
i find it a wonderfully comforting thing that SFT and QFT and so much
akin to each other in essence. they will i'm sure be used to bounce
off each other in times not too far down the track, in the same way
that numerical modelling has various tehcniques to hone in on the
numerical solution, SFT and QFT will be able to hone in on the correct
theoretical physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 09:11:09 PM |
|
|
this is what i mean by saying that SFT and QFT give us a 'stereoscopic'
view of the true physics which of course will always be available to
experimental methods also, just like the issues involved in particle
physics for example
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 11:49:36 AM |
|
|
do you know what centre-of-motion fields are?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 11:32:33 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays.
I wondered what physics journal would publish that stuff. Then I went
to the homepage of "Physics Essays" and simply looked at the titles of
some of the other articles they have published in the last months. And
realized that the peer review for this journal probably isn't that good...
Doing a Google search through sci.physics further confirmed that.
E.g. Steve Carlip, a physicist whose judgement I highly trust, called
"Physics Essays" a "fringe" journal and placed it on the same level as
Galilean Electrodynamics (see the post with Message-ID
459udo$25p@mark.ucdavis.edu).
So, in your place, I wouldn't keep boasting that my paper will get
published in "Physics Essays". That isn't much of a compliment for
your work...
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
everyone has to start somewhere, bjeorn; actually the editors are a
really interesting bunch but then you wouldn't care; you've got your
mind made up by reading someoneelse's opinions haven't you, well you're
free to your opinions about what's wonderful and what's not;
after all might is right eh, bjeorn? i can see you're a real thinking
man's man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
31 Aug 2005 06:16:26 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays.
I wondered what physics journal would publish that stuff. Then I went
to the homepage of "Physics Essays" and simply looked at the titles of
some of the other articles they have published in the last months. And
realized that the peer review for this journal probably isn't that good...
Doing a Google search through sci.physics further confirmed that.
E.g. Steve Carlip, a physicist whose judgement I highly trust, called
"Physics Essays" a "fringe" journal and placed it on the same level as
Galilean Electrodynamics (see the post with Message-ID
459udo$25p@mark.ucdavis.edu).
So, in your place, I wouldn't keep boasting that my paper will get
published in "Physics Essays". That isn't much of a compliment for
your work...
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
everyone has to start somewhere, bjeorn;
Well, I started publishing with articles in Nuclear Physics and
Physical Review, two quite prestigious journals...
actually the editors are a
really interesting bunch but then you wouldn't care; you've got your
mind made up by reading someoneelse's opinions haven't you,
Thanks for demonstrating your severe reading comprehension problems
yet again. I pointed out above *explicitly* that I went to the
homepage of the journal myself and looked what other articles they
have published. This is *not* making my mind up by reading someone
else's opinions.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 11:32:34 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays.
I wondered what physics journal would publish that stuff. Then I went
to the homepage of "Physics Essays" and simply looked at the titles of
some of the other articles they have published in the last months. And
realized that the peer review for this journal probably isn't that good...
Doing a Google search through sci.physics further confirmed that.
E.g. Steve Carlip, a physicist whose judgement I highly trust, called
"Physics Essays" a "fringe" journal and placed it on the same level as
Galilean Electrodynamics (see the post with Message-ID
459udo$25p@mark.ucdavis.edu).
So, in your place, I wouldn't keep boasting that my paper will get
published in "Physics Essays". That isn't much of a compliment for
your work...
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
everyone has to start somewhere, bjeorn; actually the editors are a
really interesting bunch but then you wouldn't care; you've got your
mind made up by reading someoneelse's opinions haven't you, well you're
free to your opinions about what's wonderful and what's not;
after all might is right eh, bjeorn? i can see you're a real thinking
man's man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 11:36:07 AM |
|
|
do you ever do any thinking for yourself bjeorn? do you know what
coulombs law is? do you know what you use inside QFT?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
31 Aug 2005 06:18:42 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
do you ever do any thinking for yourself bjeorn?
Yes. Hint: one can't obtain a PhD without thinking for oneself.
One can't publish papers without doing that.
do you know what coulombs law is?
Try looking at this, if you understand German:
<http://mathphys.fsk.uni-heidelberg.de/skripte/Files/Physik/Theo_EDynamik/Bjoern_Feuerbacher_ED.ps.gz>
do you know what you use inside QFT?
Yes. Hint: you don't.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 09:11:26 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays. the
paper is much the same as can be downloaded at www.unifiedphysics.com.
i guess those who have invested years of study and effort to QFT will
like bjeorn, be absolutely hostile to any advances in our mathematical
and physical knowledge.
Making basic errors in applying Maxwell's equations is not an advance
in mathematical and physical knowledge.
as i say the proof of the SFT method is in the pudding,
Hint: lots of cranks say essentially the same.
those who don't want to see will not be shown by me or anyone
else; as is found in the good book, "there's none so blind, as those
who will not see".
There is a saying about a pot and a kettle...
actually the SFT method is quite straightforward,
Straightforwardly wrong, indeed.
and follows QFT quite closely,
Since you don't understand QFT, as you nicely demonstrated...
and as i've said ad neaseum (thanks, autymn),
For what? For the misspelling?
[snip rant]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 09:49:19 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
the hydrogen paper is to be published next month in physics essays. the
paper is much the same as can be downloaded at www.unifiedphysics.com.
i guess those who have invested years of study and effort to QFT will
like bjeorn, be absolutely hostile to any advances in our mathematical
and physical knowledge. as i say the proof of the SFT method is in the
pudding, those who don't want to see will not be shown by me or anyone
else; as is found in the good book, "there's none so blind, as those
who will not see".
actually the SFT method is quite straightforward, and follows QFT quite
closely, and as i've said ad neaseum (thanks, autymn), the analogy
between the finite element method (FEM) which employs langrangian
density functions and shape functions to numerically solve partial
differential equations (PDE's), and the finite difference method (FDM)
which uses suitable trial functions variables directly to a set of
PDE's, is a very good one; i can only suggest anyone seriously wanting
to use SFT, should study these numerical methods. they really do give
a good rationale to SFT and QFT, and the advantages of both; although
as i have also said ad neaseum, QFT uses the old COULOMB-LIKE fields of
the classical physics, and this induces an innacurcy.which we currently
know as heisenberg uncertainty principle.
i will introduce a new thread soon on the centre-of-motion fields used
by SFT and why they are an advantage over the old coulomb-like fields
of QFT
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is the
expression. What, are you going to hunt around
in it with a metal detector?
The two orthogonal rotations have to be odd vs even
in order for the field to self-perpetuate,
as in 1:2, 3:2, 5:2, 7:2, 9:2 etc. This causes
pathways to be repeatedly followed by a maximum
of *two* members which allows them
to DRAFT each other.
See the Galaxy Model for the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 06:44:25 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
poor bjeorn being asked to supply what he's never supplied before!!
Huh???
you're a petty liar, bjeorn!!
Huh??? What exactly have I lied about, in your opinion?
you haven't read the hydrogen paper at all;
Did I ever say I did? I merely scanned through it until I found the
first obvious error. The one I pointed out, and which you *still* have
not addressed.
all those effects you claim are left out have been placed into one
eigenvalue problem, the whole hydrogen problem has been recast into a
FINITE EIGENVALUE problem, not an infinite eigenvalue problem as per
QFT with its CONTINUOUS COULOMB-LIKE FIELD and hence its fog of HUP
'unkowledge'.
WHAT ON EARTH HAS THIS TO DO WITH YOUR BASIC ERROR I POINTED IOUT?
How on earth could placing effects into an eigenvalue problem correct
the error that your charge and current densities are *not* for
discrete particles, but for a *homogeneous* distribution?
And what "infinite eigenvalue problem" are you talking about???
there was a host of other issues to report including the
links between SFT and SNSFT, not just an endless list of data for the
hydrogen atom data; but mention was made to the fine structure and
other QED results;
Mention this isn't enough. Can you *explain* it *quantitatively*?
more than that SFT was readied for the next stage,
as a unifying field theory.
You wouldn't recognize a unifying field theory if it bit you into the
nose.
there's a really big clear picture with
SFT bjeorn, much clearer than is the corresponding view of physics
using QFT.
Since you have demonstrated several times now that you don't
understand QFT, you are not in the position to judge that.
(but i guess to you this is just word salad huh?
Yes, most of what you write is word salad, indeed.
yeah
you're a complete and utter dummie; you wouldn't know the truth when
its hitting you around the head)
*yawn*
Strange that lots of actual physicists, you know, people who are
actually working in quantum theory, think otherwise, don't you think?
Oh, yes, these are all also "complete and utter dummies", right? Only
you are the genius who is able to see the Truth (tm), right?
Try looking here:
<http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html>
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 06:52:47 AM |
|
|
Strange that lots of actual physicists, you know, people who are
actually working in quantum theory, think otherwise, don't you think?
Oh, yes, these are all also "complete and utter dummies", right? Only
you are the genius who is able to see the Truth (tm), right?
i have no issue with these folk; they have a fine maths tool (better
without HUP of course, and renormalization); they aren't trying to tell
lies about other techniques that they know nothing about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 09:16:14 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
Strange that lots of actual physicists, you know, people who are
actually working in quantum theory, think otherwise, don't you think?
Oh, yes, these are all also "complete and utter dummies", right? Only
you are the genius who is able to see the Truth (tm), right?
i have no issue with these folk; they have a fine maths tool (better
without HUP of course, and renormalization); they aren't trying to tell
lies about other techniques that they know nothing about.
Hint: I was never "trying to tell lies" about SFT.
This is a total misrepresentation of what I actually did do (pointing
out a basic blunder in your application of Maxwell's equation, which
you *still* have not addressed). So retract this assertion, please.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 10:05:05 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
tony fleming wrote:
poor bjeorn being asked to supply what he's never supplied before!!
Huh???
you're a petty liar, bjeorn!!
Huh??? What exactly have I lied about, in your opinion?
[snip]
Your personality is way too forgiving. You keep attracting the cranks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
31 Aug 2005 06:40:01 AM |
|
|
there are some cranks that cannot understand
Feuerbacher invention about the FERTZ
it is only lately that i started to appreciate it
to those who are not acquainted with that great
physical innovation that is based on deep understanding of the maxwell
equation
so
one FERTZ is an EM wave that has one cycle....
per one year!!
unprecedented ingenuity and understanding
of a physics teacher.
i suggest he will publish it in a famous prestigious
Journal.!!
ATB
Y.Porat
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 06:50:41 AM |
|
|
note: no 'error' listed here, just a claimed lack of QED data in the
paper, nonsensical rubbish off the top of his head by bjeorn who
doesn't understand what he's on about when it comes to SFT or
self-fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: maxwell's eqns and self-fields |
30 Aug 2005 09:14:52 AM |
|
|
tony fleming wrote:
note: no 'error' listed here, just a claimed lack of QED data in the
paper,
Say, how severe *are* you reading comprehension problems???
I'll tell you *again* what error you made:
<http://www.unifiedphysics.com/UP_EM_self_fields_all_in_one_revb_Nov_08_04.pdf>
The Maxwell equations (1a) to (1d) on which [you base your] whole
paper are already formulated in a wrong way: the charge and current
density [you use] here make no sense at all. [You say that you
consider] consider *discrete* particles; this implies that the charge
and current densities have to be non-zero only in certain regions of
space (for point particles, they have to be sums of delta functions).
In contrast, the charge and current densities [you use] here are
non-zero *everywhere*, i.e. what [you consider] is a space filled
homogeneously with charge and current!!!
Would you *please* *finally* address this??? Or will you yet again act
like if I never wrote that?
And, BTW, the fine structure of the hydrogen spectrum
1) is not "QED data", but simple a relativistic effect; since you
claim to incorporate relativity, you should be able to address this
2) is really missing in the paper, so the "claimed lack" is exactly to
the point.
nonsensical rubbish off the top of his head by bjeorn who
doesn't understand what he's on about when it comes to SFT or
self-fields
I don't need to understand your fantasies about self-fields. But I
*do* understand Maxwell's equations, and that's why I am able to
recognize a basic blunder when I see it - like the one I keep pointing
out, and you keep ignoring.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
