[sorincosofret (OP)]

Ok Sophie,
I reformulate:
Even in case of electrons oscillations (why not nucleus oscillations too!?) the effect at macroscopic level it should be zero. I hope is a more clear English formulations. There are some differences between Latin and English topic of sentence ... so sorry for my English.

[Bored chemist]

Sorin.
you say that alternating electic fields cannot make electrons oscilate. "How can be true that a microwave field produce an oscillation of a electron."
You say it even after I have pointed out that the resonance in magnetrons relies on this.
OK how about particle accelerators like cyclotrons?
the people who use them say they work by accelerating electrons (sometimes other particles) back and to.

What unworldly explanation are you going to give for this?
Or are you simply going to ignore the fact that what you say is clearly wrong?
You were wrong about the magnetic field from a gas carrying a current.
You were wrong about the field from a semiconductor carrying a current.
You didn't understand how electric current flows through an electrolyte.

How many other things are you going to be wrong about befoer you accept that your "theory" is useless?
This isn't a language problem. The problem is your "theory".

[sorincosofret (OP)]

B.C,
I'm not interested to respond at your comments.
Please make a mental control learn to speak polite and after maybe I will answer to you.

[lyner]

The force on an electron may be small due to a varying em wave. But, if you accept that a low frequency varying E field will make an electron oscillate, you cannot say that' at a certain frequency which is high enough' the movement will be zero. It will just be very small. Of course, the mean displacement will be zero, but that's not what counts for reflection to occur due to electron conduction - it's the vibration.
Using the accepted (by you,too, I hope?) value of  e/m = 1.75888e11 C/Kg, the force on an electron in a field of 1V/m  would produce an  acceleration of  about  1.7e11m/s/s.
Making a simple assumption that the em wave is a squarewave rather than a sinewave and using a typical frequency for light of 5e14Hz, the acceleration in each direction is acting for
0.5/5e14s = e-14s
By the end of each half cycle, the electron will have reached a velocity of
(Acceleration times time)
a = 1.7e11 X e-14
     = 1.7e-3m/s
This is roughly the speed of the electron over half a cycle (1.7mm/s)
Using an equation of motion (school stuff)
distance traveled, d, is 1/2 X acc X time (a half cycle, in this case)
d = 1.7e-3 X e-14
d = 8.5e-18m (during each half cycle)
Assuming that the effective 'field strength' of a photon of visible light is of the same order of magnitude as the electron volt energy  of the photons - say 2V
The 'wobble' produced by a 2V/m  would be about 1.7e-17m.  The classical diameter of the electron is about 6e-15 so the movement corresponds to about 0.3% of the diameter of an electron. That's not ZERO.
For a frequency of  10GHz, the time of a half cycle would be much greater and the distance moved would be greater - more like the diameter of an atom - easier to understand, perhaps, but still the same story basically.

Someone please check my arithmetic.

[Madidus_Scientia]

B.C,
I'm not interested to respond at your comments.
Please make a mental control learn to speak polite and after maybe I will answer to you.

Seems like pretty good control under the circumstances. How conveinient though that you choose to ignore BC for poking holes in your logic.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

M.S.,
Any new theory can seems illogical looking from the perspective of accepted theory.
The epicycle theory was explaining quite good the movements of planets in the XVI century; this does not means a new theory didn't change this state of works a little bit later.
The kinetic theory of Boltzmann was not accepted by any physicist of its time (in fact he suicide from disillusion); now any low level physics text present his statistics without making at least  a reference of his dramatical end life.
The relativity theory was accepted after 15 years from its publication. In fact Einstein was a lucky man because Eddington was a supporter of relativity and he was interpreted the results of eclipse in favor of relativity theory (this does not means the effect does not exist; only the data due to the atmospheric conditions were not reliable for a radical decision).
I have time to wait, and in the same time I can continue in silence further development of the theory.
I leave to other posteriors physicists to decide how absurd are the precepts and the predictions of proposed theory.

[lyner]

I don't think there is any logic.

[Bored chemist]

OK, does anyone have a microwave oven, a potato, a scientific mind, and the desire to test Sorin's theory?
If so please feel free to use the example I gave (and more polite language) to see if you can get an answer from Sorin.

[lyner]

I think we are onto a loser; his last post suggested that he has the same stature as Einstein and that it would only be a matter of time before he is to be found correct.
Don't hold your breath, sorin.

[Bored chemist]

You couldn't disprove relativity with a slightly palid baked potato.
Somehow I think history will be able to distinguish between Sorin and Albert.

[lyner]

I think Albert will have sold more books.

[Bored chemist]

Fewer people will have tried to get their money back too.

[JodyScanlon]

I would like to know more about it. Maybe someone read some scientific article or something like this about it! I usually use just <<<SPAM LINK REMOVED>>> and I hope that someone also will share their source.

[Colin2B]

I would like to know more about it. Maybe someone read some scientific article or something like this about it! I usually use just <<<SPAM LINK REMOVED>>> and I hope that someone also will share their source.

Are you really interested or just trying to spam us??

[Bill S]

Hi Jody, welcome.

As a newcomer, you should, perhaps, be given the benefit of the doubt.  Presumption of innocence, and all that jazz.

Your post leaves me wondering what you are looking for. However, I assume you find something meritorious in Sorin’s theory.  If this is the case, you have probably already examined his ideas in the light of comments by other posters.  If you have not done that, the comments in #21 could be a good starting point.

Possibly you have found/will find a way to defend the theory.  That would certainly be worth resurrecting a 10-year-old thread for.