greywolf42 wrote in message news:...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

{snip}


You can do a google search on Petr
Beckmann and/or "Einstein Plus Two" on the newsgroups for an update,
if
you wish.

Will I find the same argument there that you present below, or something
additional, too?

Meant to go back and affix a link which includes excerpts:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg....supernews.com

{snip}

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42 wrote:
greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...


{snip}


You can do a google search on Petr
Beckmann and/or "Einstein Plus Two" on the newsgroups for an update,

if

you wish.

Will I find the same argument there that you present below, or something
additional, too?


Meant to go back and affix a link which includes excerpts:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg....supernews.com

Thanks for the link. But you quoted only a lot of text there. What are
the actual calculations proving Beckmann's point?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:
greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

{snip}

You can do a google search on Petr
Beckmann and/or "Einstein Plus Two" on the newsgroups for an update,
if you wish.

Will I find the same argument there that you present below, or
something additional, too?

Meant to go back and affix a link which includes excerpts:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg....supernews.com

Thanks for the link. But you quoted only a lot of text there. What are
the actual calculations proving Beckmann's point?

They are in the book. I have no desire to attempt ascii math to that
degree.

I can attest that AFAICT, the math and conclusions follow quite nicely from
the assumptions. If you have a problem, it will probably be with the
assumptions. Which I included in the quoted text.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

greywolf42 wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

greywolf42 wrote:

greywolf42 wrote in message news:...


Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

{snip}


You can do a google search on Petr
Beckmann and/or "Einstein Plus Two" on the newsgroups for an update,
if you wish.

Will I find the same argument there that you present below, or
something additional, too?

Meant to go back and affix a link which includes excerpts:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg....supernews.com

Thanks for the link. But you quoted only a lot of text there. What are
the actual calculations proving Beckmann's point?


They are in the book. I have no desire to attempt ascii math to that
degree.

I can attest that AFAICT, the math and conclusions follow quite nicely from
the assumptions. If you have a problem, it will probably be with the
assumptions. Which I included in the quoted text.

I don't see where in that text you included Beckmann's assumptions,
sorry. Could you please tell me what exactly you are talking about?


Further, the quotes you supplied contained some strange terms. E.g.,
what is the meaning of
1) "FIELD-REFERRED velocities"
2) "Faraday field"
3) "the energy of the electron is in balance"

Additionally, why should a *spiral* path to a lower circular
orbits produce only *one* photon, whose energy is exactly equal to the
energy difference between the two orbits? Instead of *several* photons,
where the sum of the energies is equal to that difference? And can
Beckmann also correctly predict the angular distribution of the emitted
wave (multipole radiation)?

And what about quantization of angular momentum?


Bye,
Bjoern

greywolf42 wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...



{snip higher levels}


Meant to go back and affix a link which includes excerpts:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vg....supernews.com

Thanks for the link. But you quoted only a lot of text there. What are
the actual calculations proving Beckmann's point?

They are in the book. I have no desire to attempt ascii math to that
degree.

I can attest that AFAICT, the math and conclusions follow quite nicely
from the assumptions. If you have a problem, it will probably be
with the assumptions. Which I included in the quoted text.

I don't see where in that text you included Beckmann's assumptions,
sorry. Could you please tell me what exactly you are talking about?


Sorry, I'm not interested in feeding the Troll.

I asked genuine questions. I was in no way trolling!!!

I count this pathetic, lame evasion of yours as indication that you
simply can't answer my questions.



Further, the quotes you supplied contained some strange terms. E.g.,
what is the meaning of
1) "FIELD-REFERRED velocities"
2) "Faraday field"
3) "the energy of the electron is in balance"


I figured you'd have problems with the assumptions.

I asked you what these terms *MEAN*!!!

How on earth do you get from "asking questions what the terms mean" to
"has problems with the assumptions"?!?!?!?



Additionally, why should a *spiral* path to a lower circular
orbits produce only *one* photon, whose energy is exactly equal to the
energy difference between the two orbits? Instead of *several* photons,
where the sum of the energies is equal to that difference? And can
Beckmann also correctly predict the angular distribution of the emitted
wave (multipole radiation)?


Sorry, I have no desire to feed the troll.

I asked genuine questions. I was in no way trolling!!!

I count this pathetic, lame evasion of yours as indication that you
simply can't answer my questions.



And what about quantization of angular momentum?


What about it?

Does Beckmann talk about it? For example, does he explain the results
of the Stern-Gerlach experiment?

If you reply that I should read up this for myself, may I remind you
again that the book is not available at my local library?


I have no desire to feed the troll.

Since I'm not troll, this is simply a pathetic, lame evasion.



Either read the reference or not. It's your choice.

Which reference are you talking about? If you talk about the post
to which you gave the link above, then, hint: I *did* read it. My
questions above (which you ignored with a pathetic, lame evasion) were
specifically about the content of that post.



Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

{snip higher levels}

I don't see where in that text you included Beckmann's assumptions,
sorry. Could you please tell me what exactly you are talking about?

Sorry, I'm not interested in feeding the Troll.

I asked genuine questions. I was in no way trolling!!!

I count this pathetic, lame evasion of yours as indication that you
simply can't answer my questions.

Further, the quotes you supplied contained some strange terms. E.g.,
what is the meaning of
1) "FIELD-REFERRED velocities"
2) "Faraday field"
3) "the energy of the electron is in balance"

I figured you'd have problems with the assumptions.

I asked you what these terms *MEAN*!!!

How on earth do you get from "asking questions what the terms mean" to
"has problems with the assumptions"?!?!?!?

If you really have no idea what those terms mean, then you will have to read
the entire book. From page 1.

I don't think you are that ignorant, or that dense. Hence, I think you are
just trolling.

Additionally, why should a *spiral* path to a lower circular
orbits produce only *one* photon, whose energy is exactly equal to the
energy difference between the two orbits? Instead of *several* photons,
where the sum of the energies is equal to that difference? And can
Beckmann also correctly predict the angular distribution of the emitted
wave (multipole radiation)?

Sorry, I have no desire to feed the troll.

I asked genuine questions. I was in no way trolling!!!

I count this pathetic, lame evasion of yours as indication that you
simply can't answer my questions.

I already gave you the answers, specifically, to why there are only specific
stable orbits. Instead of focusing on stability, you are now demanding
answers as to why specific numbers of *photons* are produced. That is
trolling.

And what about quantization of angular momentum?

What about it?

Does Beckmann talk about it? For example, does he explain the results
of the Stern-Gerlach experiment?

This has nothing to do with the subject of stable orbits, Troll.

If you reply that I should read up this for myself, may I remind you
again that the book is not available at my local library?

When someone gives me a reference that is not online, I must travel 100
miles to the nearest University library. Sometimes they don't have the
reference, and I have to go another 50 miles to the next library.

This is not a perfect world. Deal with it.

I have no desire to feed the troll.

Since I'm not troll, this is simply a pathetic, lame evasion.

You are acting like a classic troll.

Either read the reference or not. It's your choice.

Which reference are you talking about? If you talk about the post
to which you gave the link above, then, hint: I *did* read it. My
questions above (which you ignored with a pathetic, lame evasion) were
specifically about the content of that post.

A typical troll response. The only reference that we are talking about it
"Einstein Plus Two."

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

[snip]

just trolling.
Sorry, I have no desire to feed the troll.
I already gave you the answers, specifically, to why there are only specific
stable orbits. Instead of focusing on stability, you are now demanding
answers as to why specific numbers of *photons* are produced. That is
trolling.
This has nothing to do with the subject of stable orbits, Troll.
I have no desire to feed the troll.
You are acting like a classic troll.
A typical troll response. The only reference that we are talking about it
"Einstein Plus Two."

Since I will not take two of them in a row, see also
"The Troll in the Corner":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...ollCorner.html

Dirk Vdm

greywolf42 wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...


{snip higher levels}


I don't see where in that text you included Beckmann's assumptions,
sorry. Could you please tell me what exactly you are talking about?

Sorry, I'm not interested in feeding the Troll.

I asked genuine questions. I was in no way trolling!!!

I count this pathetic, lame evasion of yours as indication that you
simply can't answer my questions.


Further, the quotes you supplied contained some strange terms. E.g.,
what is the meaning of
1) "FIELD-REFERRED velocities"
2) "Faraday field"
3) "the energy of the electron is in balance"

I figured you'd have problems with the assumptions.

I asked you what these terms *MEAN*!!!

How on earth do you get from "asking questions what the terms mean" to
"has problems with the assumptions"?!?!?!?

Would you please answer this question? Or are *you* just trolling?



If you really have no idea what those terms mean,

Well, they are in no way standard terms - so why on earth should I know
what they mean?


then you will have to read the entire book. From page 1.

How often do I need to tell you that it is not available in my local
library? Why don't you simply tell me?

BTW, what happened to your offer to scan in the relevant sections and
send them to me?


I don't think you are that ignorant,

These are in no way standard terms. So this has nothing to do with
ignorance.


or that dense.

What have questions about the meanings of non-standard terms to do
with being dense?


Hence, I think you are just trolling.

Strange, I'm thinking the same about you.


Additionally, why should a *spiral* path to a lower circular
orbits produce only *one* photon, whose energy is exactly equal to the
energy difference between the two orbits? Instead of *several* photons,
where the sum of the energies is equal to that difference? And can
Beckmann also correctly predict the angular distribution of the emitted
wave (multipole radiation)?

Sorry, I have no desire to feed the troll.

I asked genuine questions. I was in no way trolling!!!

I count this pathetic, lame evasion of yours as indication that you
simply can't answer my questions.


I already gave you the answers, specifically, to why there are only specific
stable orbits.

You gave a vague, general statement. When I asked for the calculations
supporting that, you first offered to scan in the relevant sections and
send them to me. But now you simply repeat your mantra "look at the
reference", although I told you several times that the book is not
available to me, and act as if you never made that offer. You even
snipped a question of mine where I asked what happened to that offer.

Additionally, even if you had given an answer as to wy there are only
specific stable orbits: that has *nothing* to do with my actual
questions above. Didn't you bother to actually read them, are you too
dumb to understand them, or are you simply willfully ignorant and
arrogant here? I suspect the latter - i.e. you are trolling.


Instead of focusing on stability, you are now demanding
answers as to why specific numbers of *photons* are produced. That is
trolling.

No, that is asking some specific questions for clarification and pointing
out some obvious problems with Beckmann's ideas. Unfortunately you
are too dumb to understand that, apparently - or you are willfully
playing the ignorant and arrogant one. I.e., you are trolling.



And what about quantization of angular momentum?

What about it?

Does Beckmann talk about it? For example, does he explain the results
of the Stern-Gerlach experiment?


This has nothing to do with the subject of stable orbits,

Angular momentum has a *lot* to do with "orbits" of electrons in atoms.
Unfortunately, you are too dumb to understand that, apparently - or you
are willfully playing the ignorant and arrogant one. I.e., you are trolling.


Troll.

Talking to yourself, I see.


If you reply that I should read up this for myself, may I remind you
again that the book is not available at my local library?


When someone gives me a reference that is not online, I must travel 100
miles to the nearest University library. Sometimes they don't have the
reference, and I have to go another 50 miles to the next library.

This is not a perfect world. Deal with it.

You offered to scan in the relevant sections and send them to me. What
happened to that offer?

And why did you simply snip that question of me in another post, and
ignored it completely? Trying to cover up something?


I have no desire to feed the troll.

Since I'm not troll, this is simply a pathetic, lame evasion.


You are acting like a classic troll.

Talking to yourself again, I see.


Either read the reference or not. It's your choice.

Which reference are you talking about? If you talk about the post
to which you gave the link above, then, hint: I *did* read it. My
questions above (which you ignored with a pathetic, lame evasion) were
specifically about the content of that post.


A typical troll response.

Yes, yours was a typical troll response. I fully agree.


The only reference that we are talking about it "Einstein Plus Two."

Err, in this subthread, you gave a link to another post. That is *also*
a reference, if one uses this word with its standard meaning.



Bye,
Bjoern