Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity

[sorin]

Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity

Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This postulate
can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic waves
during acceleration. Of course we do not take into consideration the
spot produced during beam contact with phosphorescent layer of screen.
In a second cut off experiment, in case of a magnetron, if static
magnetic field is removed and electrons are accelerated between
cathode and anode, no microwaves are ever produced. On the other hand
if we keep the electric field and magnetic field, but resonant
cavities are filled in, we have two situations. Up to a certain value
of magnetic field, the electron trajectories are curved but they
manage to arrive on anode and no electromagnetic waves are produced.
If the magnetic field overpasses a certain value, the electron
trajectory is so curved that they fall back on the cathode. In this
case there is an emission of electromagnetic waves on a broad spectrum
in radio and microwave domain.
The resonant cavities importance is analyzed and it is found that they
insure the emission on a short range of frequencies, depending on
their characteristics.
In fact it can be formulated a new paradox of modern electrodynamics:
emission of electromagnetic wave is the best when Maxwell equations
are ruled out. This paradox is always respected in case of a microwave
oven: the emission in microwave is maxim when electric current is
quite zero and electrons fall back on the cathode.
In a third cut off experiment the working principle of NMR is analyzed
and it is found that this demolish the foundation of both quantum
theory and classical electromagnetism.
In proposed theory the actual electromagnetic domain is split up in
three distinct categories: electric currents, electromagnetic waves
(radio, microwave and new terahertz waves) and photons (IR,VIS, UV,
etc) domain.
Further, the conditions in which matter emits
electromagnetic waves or photons are analyzed.
The link:
http://www.elkadot.com/ro/magneticitate/electromagnetic1.htm

The second part of this material will be posted as soon it will be
finished.

Best regards,
Sorin Cosofret

 

[Bob_Villa]

On Sep 19, 11:38 am, sorin <sorincosof...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity

Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This postulate
can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic waves
during acceleration. Of course we do not take into consideration the
spot produced during beam contact with phosphorescent layer of screen.
In a second cut off experiment, in case of a magnetron, if static
magnetic field is removed and electrons are accelerated between
cathode and anode, no microwaves are ever produced. On the other hand
if we keep the electric field and magnetic field, but resonant
cavities are filled in, we have two situations. Up to a certain value
of magnetic field, the electron trajectories are curved but they
manage to arrive on anode and no electromagnetic waves are produced.
If the magnetic field overpasses a certain value, the electron
trajectory is so curved that they fall back on the cathode. In this
case there is an emission of electromagnetic waves on a broad spectrum
in radio and microwave domain.
The resonant cavities importance is analyzed and it is found that they
insure the emission on a short range of frequencies, depending on
their characteristics.
In fact it can be formulated a new paradox of modern electrodynamics:
emission of electromagnetic wave is the best when Maxwell equations
are ruled out. This paradox is always respected in case of a microwave
oven: the emission in microwave is maxim when electric current is
quite zero and electrons fall back on the cathode.
In a third cut off experiment the working principle of NMR is analyzed
and it is found that this demolish the foundation of both quantum
theory and classical electromagnetism.
In proposed theory the actual electromagnetic domain is split up in
three distinct categories: electric currents, electromagnetic waves
(radio, microwave and new terahertz waves) and photons (IR,VIS, UV,
etc) domain.
            Further, the conditions in which matter emits
electromagnetic waves or photons are analyzed.
The link:http://www.elkadot.com/ro/magneticitate/electromagnetic1.htm

The second part of this material will be posted as soon it will be
finished.

            Best regards,
            Sorin Cosofret

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

 

[Bob_Villa]

On Sep 21, 6:11 am, Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 19, 11:38 am, sorin <sorincosof...@yahoo.com> wrote:









Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity

Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This postulate
can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic waves
during acceleration. Of course we do not take into consideration the
spot produced during beam contact with phosphorescent layer of screen.
In a second cut off experiment, in case of a magnetron, if static
magnetic field is removed and electrons are accelerated between
cathode and anode, no microwaves are ever produced. On the other hand
if we keep the electric field and magnetic field, but resonant
cavities are filled in, we have two situations. Up to a certain value
of magnetic field, the electron trajectories are curved but they
manage to arrive on anode and no electromagnetic waves are produced.
If the magnetic field overpasses a certain value, the electron
trajectory is so curved that they fall back on the cathode. In this
case there is an emission of electromagnetic waves on a broad spectrum
in radio and microwave domain.
The resonant cavities importance is analyzed and it is found that they
insure the emission on a short range of frequencies, depending on
their characteristics.
In fact it can be formulated a new paradox of modern electrodynamics:
emission of electromagnetic wave is the best when Maxwell equations
are ruled out. This paradox is always respected in case of a microwave
oven: the emission in microwave is maxim when electric current is
quite zero and electrons fall back on the cathode.
In a third cut off experiment the working principle of NMR is analyzed
and it is found that this demolish the foundation of both quantum
theory and classical electromagnetism.
In proposed theory the actual electromagnetic domain is split up in
three distinct categories: electric currents, electromagnetic waves
(radio, microwave and new terahertz waves) and photons (IR,VIS, UV,
etc) domain.
            Further, the conditions in which matter emits
electromagnetic waves or photons are analyzed.
The link:http://www.elkadot.com/ro/magneticitate/electromagnetic1.htm

The second part of this material will be posted as soon it will be
finished.

            Best regards,
            Sorin Cosofret

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

(not pronouns...articles)

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Bob_Villa wrote:

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.

 

[Robbie Hatley]

"sorin" writes:

Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity
Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges.
This postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment
performed home.

No it can't.

A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic waves
during acceleration.

Yes they do. Ask any TV repairman.

... demolish the foundation of both quantum theory and classical
electromagnetism. ...

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Robbie Hatley wrote:

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

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.

 

[Chiron613]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:00:20 -0700, Robbie Hatley wrote:

<snip>

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

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.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 20/09/2011 2:38 AM, sorin wrote:

Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity

Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This postulate
can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic waves
during acceleration.

That's rather vague. Could you provide the predicted intensity of the
radiation, its spectrum, and describe the home equipment to be used to
establish that that predicted intensity is absent within the limits of
experimental error? You should include allowance for the properties of
the tube itself through which radiation will have to pass.
Alternatively, describe how to get the measuring instruments inside the
tube.

Sylvia.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity

Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
waves during acceleration.

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

 

[Jamie]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity


Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
waves during acceleration.


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


It was once absurd to think the world was round.

Jamie

 

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity


Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
waves during acceleration.


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


It was once absurd to think the world was round.

Jamie

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

 

[Jamie]

PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


William Sommerwerck wrote:


"sorin" <sorincosofret@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28a077e5-f43e-44c5-8960-31ea6b6b92d0@i2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Electromagnetic spectrum – illusion and absurdity



Classical electrodynamics is build up on a postulate of
electromagnetic waves emission by accelerated charges. This
postulate can be ruled out with simple experiment performed home.
A simple cut off experiment can show that a beam of electrons
accelerated in a cathode tube do not emit any electromagnetic
waves during acceleration.


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



It was once absurd to think the world was round.

Jamie


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

And if you could prove the ranting lunatic was wrong, you wouldn't be
here. So welcome aboard with the rest of the fools.


Jamie

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

It was once absurd to think the world was round.
Jamie

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

--
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

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:27:50 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Jamie]

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


It was once absurd to think the world was round.
Jamie


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

Like global warming is a lie? Because the sun

only heats one side at a time?

I saw that some where.

Jamie

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jamie wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


It was once absurd to think the world was round.
Jamie


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

Like global warming is a lie? Because the sun
only heats one side at a time?

I saw that some where.

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


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

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 19:31:34 -0400, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 10:32:29 -0400, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


It was once absurd to think the world was round.
Jamie


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

Like global warming is a lie? Because the sun
only heats one side at a time?

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.

I saw that some where.

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".

Jamie

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

 

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:19:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:27:50 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:32:18 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:19:16 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:27:50 -0700, PlainBill@yawhoo.com wrote:

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.

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.

Every fool with an idiotic idea claims the person with the new idea is
not recognized in their lifetime.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

<http://www.jir.com>
I've been reading the journal since about 1980.

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

Again, the typical excuses of the incompetent and deluded.

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.

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.

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.

PlainBill

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:
<http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?author=joseph+davidovits>
<http://www.davidovits.info/217/book-why-the-pharaohs-built-the-pyramids-with-fake-stones>
<http://www.davidovits.info/94/book-they-built-the-pyramids>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQoarWbd9KY>
(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