Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.electromag > #18454 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-23 19:21 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 75 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.electromag
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-23 19:21 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:31 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:30 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 11:50 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 21:02 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-25 12:26 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-25 19:25 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-25 20:58 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-07-27 17:52 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-29 16:59 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:08 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-07-30 13:15 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-07-30 15:37 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 01:53 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 11:38 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-02 13:26 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:14 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-02 13:39 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:23 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 02:33 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-03 09:04 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 14:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 20:39 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-05 08:40 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 08:59 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-04 08:55 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 23:27 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-02 18:20 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-06 12:39 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:30 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-07 18:50 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-09 15:55 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-11 12:11 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-11 21:22 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-11 15:02 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-12 11:29 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com - 2015-08-12 16:20 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-13 10:09 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 03:29 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 10:48 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 04:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-17 19:49 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:01 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:33 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 02:02 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-22 09:41 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 15:17 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 10:51 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 15:12 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-24 16:35 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-24 14:16 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-25 08:15 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-15 10:47 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-15 19:52 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:51 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-17 11:10 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:31 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 15:49 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-17 20:24 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:30 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:13 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-17 23:27 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 02:43 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-18 10:20 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-19 19:18 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 01:46 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-06 16:31 -0700
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> - 2015-08-07 18:05 -0400
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-08-08 13:21 +0200
Re: Unsolved Questions in Physics Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 02:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4jAAx.620$sq6.44@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #18596 |
On 08/17/2015 11:10 AM, Bill Miller wrote:
> On 8/17/2015 3:51 AM, benj wrote:
>> If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so people can
>> download the whole thing...
>
> balance of harangue snipped
>
> I understand, Benj and will pass your comments on to Mills.
>
> Remember, in order to read Jefimenko, not only did I *force* you to
> *buy* a copy, but you couldn't highlight and copy excerpts from his work
> either.
>
> All the best,
>
> Bill
Well, yes. But all me old fashioned, but I MUCH prefer to be holding an
object with PAGES in my hot little hands rather than being jerked around
by some website who thinks they know what is best for me. Even if I
STILL have to type in quotes myself...actually not quite true as I have
an OCR that works quite nicely but is sort of a pain for tiny quotes and
of course does not do equations. So am I going to fix the world? I don't
think so. Sure I could TELL everyone how to do it, but they wouldn't
listen. After all I'm just a kook and we all know that when a person is
a kook nobody needs to pay attention to what they say even when it is
correct.
But hey, persistence wins the day, right?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a492bd0-7529-4116-9deb-5e3a69087c1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18592 |
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 5:51:42 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > > Well excuuuuse me! I'm sorry but when someone writes a huge tome, it > just irks me to be put through a bunch of "Simon Says" flash and website > folderol. If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so > people can download the whole thing instead of pretending it's so > precious that it only can be let out slowly and with careful > supervision. In what way does the downloadable djvu version fail to meet your requirements? If you really need it to be pdf, there are free tools available to convert djvu to pdf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Bill Miller" <kt4ye@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 20:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d3fc88F9m2rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18599 |
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:0a492bd0-7529-4116-9deb-5e3a69087c1e@googlegroups.com... > On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 5:51:42 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> >> Well excuuuuse me! I'm sorry but when someone writes a huge tome, it >> just irks me to be put through a bunch of "Simon Says" flash and website >> folderol. If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so >> people can download the whole thing instead of pretending it's so >> precious that it only can be let out slowly and with careful >> supervision. > > In what way does the downloadable djvu version fail to meet your > requirements? > > If you really need it to be pdf, there are free tools available to convert > djvu to pdf. One problem is that Chrome, and a couple of others, do not support DJV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 07:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mqufpp$608$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18601 |
Dne 18/08/2015 v 02:24 Bill Miller napsal(a): > "Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message > news:0a492bd0-7529-4116-9deb-5e3a69087c1e@googlegroups.com... >> On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 5:51:42 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>> >>> Well excuuuuse me! I'm sorry but when someone writes a huge tome, it >>> just irks me to be put through a bunch of "Simon Says" flash and website >>> folderol. If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so >>> people can download the whole thing instead of pretending it's so >>> precious that it only can be let out slowly and with careful >>> supervision. >> >> In what way does the downloadable djvu version fail to meet your >> requirements? >> >> If you really need it to be pdf, there are free tools available to convert >> djvu to pdf. > > One problem is that Chrome, and a couple of others, do not support DJV > > There are standalone dedicated or universal viewers or DJVU browser plugins for that. E.g. STDUviewer or sumatraPDF view both PDF and DJVU. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 02:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <H2AAx.1149$kb7.333@fx30.iad> |
| In reply to | #18599 |
On 08/17/2015 06:49 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 5:51:42 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>> Well excuuuuse me! I'm sorry but when someone writes a huge tome, it
>> just irks me to be put through a bunch of "Simon Says" flash and website
>> folderol. If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so
>> people can download the whole thing instead of pretending it's so
>> precious that it only can be let out slowly and with careful
>> supervision.
>
> In what way does the downloadable djvu version fail to meet your requirements?
>
> If you really need it to be pdf, there are free tools available to convert djvu to pdf.
I guess it fails to meet my requirements in that I'm not set up for it
(or at least think I'm not) and the suggestion went right over top of my
pointy little head. Obviously djvu and pdf are two species of the same
bird. (Not that I'm so hot on .pdf either) Much (such as quoting or
searching text) depends on how the original file was made. Straight
scans (as is often the case) is bad in both forms. I do have apps to
deal with deconvolving .pdf even though it's a pain.
But more to the point...what was that link to the downloadable djvu
files again? (I'm going to be sorry I looked into this book, right?)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 23:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73bb2c1c-6239-4676-9b23-1a2565b2a888@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18605 |
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:14:01 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > > But more to the point...what was that link to the downloadable djvu > files again? (I'm going to be sorry I looked into this book, right?) Just follow the links: "theory", "book", "free book access", and you get to: http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/ and where it says "Entire Book (34.4MB DjVu File)", download (or download individual volumes).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 02:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <huAAx.33606$rO6.32892@fx22.iad> |
| In reply to | #18607 |
On 08/18/2015 02:27 AM, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:14:01 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
>>
>> But more to the point...what was that link to the downloadable djvu
>> files again? (I'm going to be sorry I looked into this book, right?)
>
> Just follow the links: "theory", "book", "free book access", and you get to:
> http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/book/book-download/
> and where it says "Entire Book (34.4MB DjVu File)", download (or download individual volumes).
Got it! Nice string ball! Makes me want to invest.
Of course: "No part of this work covered by copyright hereon may be
reproduced or used in any form,
or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, taping, or information
storage and retrieval systems without written permission of BlackLight
Power, Inc."
And I notice that I just reproduced this work by electronic graphic
means and put it in my storage and retrieval system and then <gasp> read
some of it (copyright notice) which mean that I was USING it in some
form. And you know I do NOT have written permission from Blacklight
Power Inc. to do this. I feel so criminal and unclean!
Thanks. (It turns out a djvu document viewer was already on this
particular virtual machine.)
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 10:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d3gta5Fl73iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18605 |
On 8/18/2015 2:13 AM, benj wrote: > On 08/17/2015 06:49 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: >> On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 5:51:42 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>> >>> Well excuuuuse me! I'm sorry but when someone writes a huge tome, it >>> just irks me to be put through a bunch of "Simon Says" flash and website >>> folderol. If the book is that damn important then put a pdf online so >>> people can download the whole thing instead of pretending it's so >>> precious that it only can be let out slowly and with careful >>> supervision. >> >> In what way does the downloadable djvu version fail to meet your >> requirements? >> >> If you really need it to be pdf, there are free tools available to >> convert djvu to pdf. > > I guess it fails to meet my requirements in that I'm not set up for it > (or at least think I'm not) and the suggestion went right over top of my > pointy little head. Obviously djvu and pdf are two species of the same > bird. (Not that I'm so hot on .pdf either) Much (such as quoting or > searching text) depends on how the original file was made. Straight > scans (as is often the case) is bad in both forms. I do have apps to > deal with deconvolving .pdf even though it's a pain. > > But more to the point...what was that link to the downloadable djvu > files again? (I'm going to be sorry I looked into this book, right?) > Timo beat me too sending the link... Please recall that I cautioned everyone to read Jefimenko's stuff *very* carefully, because he does (did) not surround his findings with bold print, exclamation points and the like. Mills is kinda like that also. See if you can find the 1 paragraph explanation of *what* the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) actually is! No, it is not a fundamental principle. (I would copy and paste it here... but I can't do that! #SIGH# Comes straight out of Maxwell, with a touch of common sense.) All the best, Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 19:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55d4ba5e$0$23777$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18592 |
On 8/17/2015 9:51 AM, benj wrote: > On 08/15/2015 01:52 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote: >> On 8/15/2015 4:47 PM, Bill Miller wrote: >>> On 8/15/2015 3:29 AM, benj wrote: >> .. >>> Have you cracked open Mills' book yet, or do I have to harass you >>> unmercifully, like I did with Jefimenko's "Causality" book? >> >> Yes, benj, you should really give your homework a bit more >> attention! Complaints about you have been piling up lately.. >> >>> P.S. start Mills' book at the beginning. >> >> Please carefully follow orders! As I predicted: It's not you >> who is crackpot master any more.. You're the assistant now. > > ... Unlike most of the establishment > priests (Jos) Bless you, benj! > He said: "QM has never dealt with the nature of fundamental particles". > Well that certainly is true. ?? It's the central theme of quantum field theory! I know that the description that turned out to fit with the facts is not what your prejudices would have wanted it to be. But let me advise you, my dear son: a bit more humbleness and devotion towards the Holy Science would befit you much better! -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 01:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_QdBx.50739$pM6.36734@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #18615 |
On 08/19/2015 01:18 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
> On 8/17/2015 9:51 AM, benj wrote:
>> On 08/15/2015 01:52 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2015 4:47 PM, Bill Miller wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2015 3:29 AM, benj wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> Have you cracked open Mills' book yet, or do I have to harass you
>>>> unmercifully, like I did with Jefimenko's "Causality" book?
>>>
>>> Yes, benj, you should really give your homework a bit more
>>> attention! Complaints about you have been piling up lately..
>>>
>>>> P.S. start Mills' book at the beginning.
>>>
>>> Please carefully follow orders! As I predicted: It's not you
>>> who is crackpot master any more.. You're the assistant now.
>>
>> ... Unlike most of the establishment
>> priests (Jos)
>
> Bless you, benj!
>
>> He said: "QM has never dealt with the nature of fundamental particles".
>> Well that certainly is true.
>
> ?? It's the central theme of quantum field theory! I know that
> the description that turned out to fit with the facts is not
> what your prejudices would have wanted it to be. But let me
> advise you, my dear son: a bit more humbleness and devotion
> towards the Holy Science would befit you much better!
But FATHER! I DO still believe in the holy Trinity of QM. I understand
that it is a Mystery of God and it is not MEANT for man to understand
what particles are. But I still want to! Forgive my sins!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 19:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55ce2029$0$2834$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18581 |
On 8/13/2015 1:20 AM, shelfstackerextraordinaire@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 4:29:04 PM UTC+1, Bill Miller wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 6:02 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: ... .. >> It was embarrassing for me when you instantly picked up on what *may* be >> the only error of that type in the 1000 + pages of work. More likely one of thousands of errors, since they appear to come with several per page.. ... > I wonder if Mill's theory is similar to Ptolemy's epicycles in > being able to reproduce just about anything with sufficient > tweaking of the parameters? I don't think so. Ptolemy was honest although his model was complicated. Mills is deliberately lying to get money from investors. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-06 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc27bc72-5b04-416e-8e2a-2442a6d897bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18556 |
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:39:37 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > > 2. Second excuse: I was terrorizing some High Country Trout. Catch any?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Miller <KT4YE@YAHOO.COM> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-07 18:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d2kodpFh3ejU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #18559 |
On 8/6/2015 7:31 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 2:39:37 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: >> >> 2. Second excuse: I was terrorizing some High Country Trout. > > Catch any? > Yep! I've been using a new (to me) but ancient (in Japan) technique called Tenkara. Fly fishing but without the reel, fancy line, etc. Super simple and very effective. I tie my own flies and it's kinda fun to fool a trout with something that was a pile of thread and feathers the night before! Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jos Bergervoet <jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-08 13:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <55c5e62a$0$2880$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #18556 |
On 8/6/2015 6:39 PM, Bill Miller wrote: > On 8/2/2015 9:20 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: >> ... > Re your critique of the math, Mills simply re-iterated that you were not > understanding/applying Maxwell correctly. So, Timo, you stand corrected! Dr. Mills has shown *you* to be the crackpot here. I think you will now soon face some lawsuit threats from BPL, like others before you, if you keep upholding your defamatory views. -- Jos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Timo Nieminen <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-01 16:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51f7b944-f2aa-490f-8904-8331fea78ed7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #18502 |
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 1:21:25 AM UTC+10, Bill Miller wrote: > On 7/29/2015 9:03 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote: > <SNIP> > > > > That's the simplicity of QM: > > QM is simple? It is by far and a way the most complex and confusing > theory since phlogiston. All of the wave stuff is the same as with classical waves/fields. Diffraction, HUP, spin, tunnelling, etc. just come over straight from the classical theory. What's added is quantisation, E=hbar.omega. "Energy/things come in discrete bits" matches observation (where classical field/wave theory fails). Straightforward limits give the classical theories. The high number of quanta limit gives classical field theory, and the short wavelength limit gives classical mechanics (just as the short wavelength limit of classical EM gives geometric optics). Without QM, classical mechanics and classical field theory are disjoint. With QM, they are limits of the same covering theory. And all you need to do QM is classical field theory + quantisation. (How is this different from what Mills uses?) > It also provides erroneous results unless "practitioners" add *ad hoc* > bits and pieces with *no theoretical justification* (as they did in the > paper you cited) No. The n-body problem is computationally intractable without approximations. The computationally tractable problems provide excellent results. Hydrogen atom, 1-electron ions, free electrons, and more. Notable successes where classical theory fails: photon counting statistics (including interesting cases like the Hanbury Brown-Twiss intensity interferometer) and "non-classical interference", which don't need anything extra added, but just work straight from the basic theory.) > the wave stuff works the same way both classically and quantumly. We > know how classical waves work, and we don't need anything special for > quantum waves to work the same way: they work the same way because > they're waves and that's the way that waves work. > > > > For example, if we combine two classical waves, the fields add: A_total=A1+A2. Where the individual waves 1 and 2 are in phase, we get constructive interference. Where they are in anti-phase, we get destructive interference. As for classical waves, then also for quantum waves. No special tricks at slits required. For example, we get the same effect if we have a plane wave incident on two slits, or just have two beams that overlap. > > > > Given that constructive/destructive interference is directly measurable, e.g., at microwave frequencies where we can measures the fields including phase rather than just intensities, and we have a whole bunch of consequences of such constructive/destructive interference that agree with experiment/observation, the simplest solution is to assume that we actually have constructive and destructive interference. While we can't directly measure the field (including phase) for optical frequencies of EM, or for electrons, we can measure intensities, and measure the effect of changing the phase of one of the beams. We find that it agrees with what we expect if we have constructive and destructive interference for optical frequencies and electrons. > > > > Denying constructive and destructive interference for optical frequencies and electrons means that a whole bunch of results with a unified classical/QM explanation suddenly become much harder to explain. > > > > If we accept constructive and destructive interference for optical frequencies and electrons, then we get the full range of wave behaviour, including HUP, diffraction (which is just HUP), spreading of beams (which is just diffraction), all working the same way in QM as in classical field theory. > > > > A nice overview of electron interference/wave behaviour stuff: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Os-9dY43cY8C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7 > > Chapter 8 explains the Wave/Particle duality in detail. It is simple... > & 100% Classical. In regular QM, interference and diffraction of electrons (and photons) is explained using classical field/wave theory. That looks like a simple and 100% classical explanation to me. (OK, we have quantisation on top of that to explain the counting statistics at the detector(s), but Mills assumes quantisation as well.) Why is anything else needed? Isn't the classical explanation used by conventional QM adequate? To make a big deal about the observed interference/diffraction not resulting from HUP is strange. HUP comes straight from the classical theory. If one denies HUP, then one is saying that some of the classical theory doesn't work. Which makes the explanation not 100% classical. In particular, Mills states (in the last paragraph of the chapter): "The old view of constructive and destructive interference of waves is disproved." This isn't 100% classical; it's anti-classical. Mills is saying that classical field/wave theory is wrong. How does Mills explain interference patterns that we see when there aren't any slits? Take one beam, see some intensity distribution on the screen. Take another beam, see some intensity distribution on the screen. Turn on both at once, and we see an interference pattern. With classical wave theory and conventional QM, this is just a result of constructive and destructive interference. How does Mills explain this? > > div(E)=rho/epsilon and curl(E)=0 says you can. See Jackson eq (1.5). > > The computationally-friendly discrete version (an approximation of the > integral (1.5)) is eq (1.4). > > This is only correct if you have a charge distribution. Mills: "The charge-density distribution of the free electron given by Eq. (3.8) and shown in Figure 3.2". If it isn't a charge distribution, why does Mills call it a charge distribution, and write the usual type of equation one would write for a charge distribution. > The orbitsphere > and it's "daughter" the pancake are not "coated" with a multitude of > itty bitty charges as I noted previously. You are making an assumption > that is erroneous and then using that assumption to attempt to prove > your point. If eq (3.8) doesn't mean that there is a charge density over a volume (or, if you prefer, a charge density over an infinitesimally thin sheet), what does it mean? > >> The charge flow does *not* consist of itty > >> bitty "electron-ettes>" If you assume it does, then you get a nonsense > >> answers. I quoted Mills on this a bit ago, but I guess you did not see it. > > > > Mills can reject Maxwell if he wants. But it would then be wrong to claim to use Maxwell as a basis for his theory. > > Mills embraces Maxwell entirely. In contrast, QM seems to say, "Now > don't get me wrong, Maxwell is just fine -- in its place. But Once > "stuff" gets too small, then we just can't use it any more. (Except, of > course, in those areas where we can't even come up with a "spooky" > solution.)" No. QM uses Maxwell all the way. OTOH, if Mills means by eq (3.8) that the charge of the electron is distributed over a volume (as shown in fig 3.2), Maxwell gives a field very different from that shown in fig 3.3. If Mills has a different field, not a solution of the Maxwell equations for this charge distribution, then Mills is not embracing Maxwell entirely. > >>>>>> Mills: Subsequent thoughts: "Quantum mechanics theoreticians seem > >>>>>> unaware of the implications of Maxwell¹s equations in two dimensions. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not a QM theoretician. I do classical electromagnetism. > >>>> > > > >>>> Tell > >>>> us what you *specifically* want to see, and I'll see what I can dig up. > >>> > >>> As already said, the spectrum - position and strengths of spectral lines, and ideally widths of the lines. > >> > >> Yes, but under what conditions? And What specific Atom? What published > >> data are you going to compare it with? > > > > Neutral atomic iron is good. The spectrum has been measured. I don't know what the best modern reference is, but NIST had good data online last I looked. > > > Yep NIST online has great info. Thanks! (This is something I have never > played with.) > > There is a small "mention" of spectra in Mills' book. See page 151. (BTW > The Lamb Shift for H is on the next page) But there is not a specific > section dealing with calculated spectra. > > I have called this issue to Mills' attention. > > He is in the process of doing *engineerng and CEO stuff* right now and > the entire operation is pretty much "balls to the wall" getting a > prototype high power (Drops of water in; multiple 10s of KW of > electricity output from something the size of a microwave oven -- not > sure of the size, but not huge) into pre-production. > > So, I won't be surprised if this spectrum issue is not addressed soon. > > You *do* know that "balls to the wall" is not an obscenity, right? > > You mentioned earlier that Mills' math was wrong in his calculations for > the Free Electron. > > This document has been available for scrutiny for several years. Earlier > -- individual -- papers have been around for a decade or more. > > During that time, both interested neutral observers (like -- presumably > -- you) have studied it. The entire work has also been the subject of > *intense* criticism by folks that seemed to have an "axe to grind." So > far, no one that I know of (& I think I would know about it) has come up > with a successful challenge to the execution of the equations. > > So, if you have time, please provide a step-by-step critique of the > equation(s) that you state are wrong. I pointed out the first error I noticed in the book - the field in fig 3.3. If you sit down and use Maxwell's equations to find the field from the charge distribution specified by eq (3.8), you get a different field. It's very simple. You take Mills' (3.8), and plug it into Jackson's (1.5), and integrate. It's either an error by Mills or a rejection of Maxwell's equations by Mills. Or, as you suggested above, that when Mills says he gives a charge distribution in eq (3.8), he isn't giving a charge distribution (despite eq (3.8) looking exactly like the kind of equation one gives for a charge distribution), which would mean that his book is cryptic (not the way to communicate science clearly). Of course, it is possible to write charge distribution over a disc that does produce the field shown in fig 3.3. E.g., see last equation in http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/ellipsoid.pdf ; take that and plug it into Jackson (1.5) and see what you get. Now, this error (fig 3.3) is obvious, and easy to check by calculating the field from (3.8). If the field in fig 3.3 did follow from (3.8), this could be shown. What was the response? Considering the response to this simple and obvious error, I'm not surprised that there hasn't been a "successful challenge". If errors are denied/ignored, how can there be a "successful challenge"?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.electromag
csiph-web