Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity

You need a proof-reader...excuse this, but your syntax, sentence structure,tense, and lack of pronouns (or too many) is atrocious.

You need to stop feeding the 'Fritz' troll.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

No it can't.

Yes they do. Ask any TV repairman.

Oh, brother. Yet another person who knows no mathematics or physics, but thinks he can "debunk" GR, QED, Maxwell's equations, etc. ::: rolls eyes ::: If your "theories" were correct, neither transformers nor switching power supplies would function at all. And yet they do, just as Maxwell's equations predict. Therefore, you are full of shit.

Find a different hobby; you suck at math, physics, and electronics. Punk rock, perhaps... or maybe modern art, or modern poetry.

--
RH

Don't feed the 'Fritz' troll. He's been posting this crap for years.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Thank you...

So many people out there who are smarter than Einstein, Planck, and all those other guys who bothered with mathematics.

--
I'm hungry, time to eat lunch.

I hope readers won't take any of this seriously. This guy simply doesn't know what he's tal;king about.

AH, but in the third century BC, the Greek scholar Eratosthenes calculated the circumference and axial tilt of the Earth. Clearly, over 2000 years ago INTELLIGENT people understood that the world is round. The fact that some fools did not accept that is immaterial.

Your attempt to validate the rantings of a fool by using an invalid argument places you at the same intellectual level as the fool.

PlainBill

The earth is not round. It's an oblate spheroid.

-- Jeff Liebermann snipped-for-privacy@cruzio.com

150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

The problem is that prophets and scholars are not recognized in their own time or place. One has to be dead to be appreciated. In the days when peer reviews were conducted by the church, the publish or perish dichotomy highly favored perish. In an effort to keep friend close, and enemies even closer, the church made it mandatory for scholars and teachers to join the clergy. For example, Isaac Newton was an ordained minister.

I don't think it's proper to be judged by the company we keep, especially since I've frequently taken the unpopular point of view for no better reason entertainment value. In the USA, we tend to attend the political speeches of those we agree with. That's boring. In the UK, it's popular to attend those of the opposition and heckle. That makes for a far more lively debate.

It's much the same with science. We tent to read publications that follow our beliefs, and ignore those that are opposed. That's being rather narrow minded as much important science has come from obscure and unpopular places. Similarly, defending an unpopular point of view is a great way of understanding the topic clearly from all possible positions.

Bottom line: Criticize the merits of the argument, not the person advocating it.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Likely on one of your many drug induced trips, Maynard.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

The ancients believed in a flat earth and didn't have any problems with global warming. Obviously, the solution to global warming is to flatten the planet.

Even if you don't believe the earth is an oblate spheroid, it's also not "round". Just "round" is ambiguous and might imply a disk, as in a flat earth. I suggest you use the term "sphere" instead of "round".

The problem with the original article is that the author fails to understand how a cavity magnetron operates. It's basically a whistle operating at microwave frequencies. The physics of a whistle are not trivial. The electron beam entering the cavity crosses the beam exiting the cavity. The transition is unstable, causing the beam to oscillate at a rate controlled by the circumference of the cavity. Rather than accept the mechanical analogy, the author presents a rather bizarre and faulty explanation, and then concludes that it must be the result of some new and previously unknown principle. Methinks not.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Every fool with an idiotic idea claims the person with the new idea is not recognized in their lifetime. Your childish attempt to deflect the objections by using 'prophets and scholars' to the contrary, you only have to attend a few history classes to realize the falsehood of your assertion. Off the top of my head, a few examples of scientists and inventors who were widely appreciated in their lifetime include the afore mentioned Eratosthenes, Archemedies, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Faraday, Franklin, Curie, Jenner, Lister, Einstein, Bell, Marconi, Westinghouse, Steinmetz, Edison, von Braun, Cray, Fermi, etc.

At the same time, Velikovsky, Erich-von-Daniken, Fleischmann, Pons, have dropped into the obscurity they deserved.

Again, the typical excuses of the incompetent and deluded. If you associate with fools and charlatans you may be judged by the company you keep. If you endorse their ideas, you will deservedly be judged by them.

PlainBill

Perhaps if they repeat it often enough, you might actually believe it?

I wrote and meant "prophets and scholars", not "scientists and engineers". Prophets and scholars have difficulties in proving the value of their assertions. Proving the assertions of scientists are difficult, but if one follows the experimental method, it eventually becomes a pass/fail proposition. Proving the works of engineers are the easiest. If it gets built, and it works, then it's good. If it fails in some manner, it's not so good.

The same cannot be said for "prophets and scholars". Prophets are in effect attempting to predict the future. Global environmental climatology would be a science where it may take more than a lifetime to validate various prophetic predictions. Scholars are experts in their fields, who often build on their reputation to make scholarly proclamations in areas outside of their areas of expertise. Both prophets and scholars have problems proving anything, usually until after they're dead, when the validity of their claims tend to be advertised and built upon by subsequent prophets and scholars.

Most of those are scientists and engineers. They all had something substantial to deflect critics and to prove their value. Had they been "prophets or scholars", their might have been less appreciated.

Velikovsky is a problem because he was about half right. His revised middle east chronology was overly revisionist and generally wrong. Yet, his criticism of the errors in the then standard chronology opened the door to other scholars offering more realistic revised chronologies. The few that I've read, all tend to start out with comments and observations borrowed from Velikovsky. "Worlds in Collision" was much the same. His observations were about half right but his physics stunk. When Carl Sagen took it upon himself to openly criticize his physics, Sagen almost completely neglected mentioning anything about his observations and predictions, about half of which were verified by subsequent space probes. To Sagen's credit, he was also a staunch critic of those that attempted to suppress Velikovsky simply because they disagreed with his analysis and predictions. This is largely my point. Don't discredit someone's theory, philosophy, prophecy, or logic, simply because you found a few mistakes. There may be something of value in what's left.

Erich von Daniken has the same problem as Velikovsky. He tended to be half right. He unearthed paradox's and inconsistencies in conventional history and archeology that should make one at least suspect that something was wrong. However, like Velikovsky, he didn't know when to stop. Whenever something unexplainable was found, he attributed it to aliens, rather than work on a more plausible explanation, in violation of Occam's Razor.

I know little about Fleischmann and Pons as I haven't bothered to study cold fusion or care much about it. As soon as it was found to be difficult to reproduce the original experiments, I discarded the whole thing as a bad mistake. However, I sympathize with them. Their mistake was to self-publish and bypass the entire peer review mechanism. We have a good example of that happening right now as a CERN scientist now claims that he's measured neutrinos moving at faster than the speed-o-light. Like cold fusion, we only have to wait for experimental corroboration. It's acceptable to make a mistake. It is not acceptable to publish and then be proven wrong.

I've been reading the journal since about 1980.

You would do well as a member of the Inquisition, where the sole criteria for survival is adherence to dogma and doctrine. Those that refuse to conform are immediately deemed incompetent and under the influence of the devil. Again, I suggest you pass judgment on someone's ideas, not on the person.

That's a risk I'll willingly take. I prefer the company of fools and charlatans to the company of those that confuse validation with consensus.

Incidentally, have you ever hear of Joseph Davidovits? His theory of how the pyramids were built with re-agglomerated limestone has been largely ignored by mainstream archeology:

(Ignore the added crap about Mars). My guess is he'll be dead before his theories are proven and accepted. I find his theories compelling and believe them generally correct. Since that opposes conventional archaeology, does that also make me a fool (or charlatan for promulgating them)?

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558