Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Strike ZERO !

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on November 4, 2001 21:45:01 UTC

Luis, you wrote:
(Alex) has said that a photon is an "electric field of accelerated charge." Apply this definition to your reponse here, and we get, "why should magnetic (or electric) field affect a magnetic (or electric) field?"

Your line of thinking represents the very definition of absurdity. Sadly, it is the same line of thinking some physicists still employ.

Luis, are you really so dumb (well, ignorant) or you just pretending in order to "kill the time"?

Adding some CONSTANT number B0 to magnetic component of e/magnetic field B1sin(wt) simply makes it B0+Bsin(wt). Because constant B does NOT make new VARIABLE magnetic field, thus NO new electromagnetic field is produced by permanent magnet (E=-dB/dt = 0 because B does NOT change with time) only which we call "a photon", nothing propagates to detector from the place where you put a magnet, so there is nothing new a detector (or eye) can see - they only see variable field Bsin(wt) - THE SAME PHOTON as before.

Do you have more physics 101 questions? Boy, I enjoy educating ignorants.

Luis, I noticed that you are loosing logic - you do not understand basics and points on it. This is good. But then you says that OTHERS (scientists) make an error ("absurdity").

Knowing your primitive level of education, I am afraid that you do not understand what I say, so let me explain what you claim in more basic terms.

Suppose, that you DO NOT know that 2+0=2. (You have full rights to do that or enjoy full freedom of NOT accepting that, proudly guaranteed by your constitution). You then say: "Look - if I add SOMETHING to 2, I obviousely should get MORE than 2. This is CONTRARY to what scientists claim. So, their line of thinking represents the very definition of absurdity. Sadly, it is the same line of thinking some physicists still employ." So, WHO is right here - scientists or you?

I like your remark about russian physicists and modern (=american?) science. One of those russian physicists is now explaining very basics to some proudly dumb (poorly educated) americans right in front of your eyes. I believe, you already know whom I mean.

Warm regards :-)

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins