Re: Expelled: If you don't believe in holy physics dogma ; you're fired!

"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ibw8k.72552$102.19315@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
| news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0806240535450.1160@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
| >
| >>
| >> "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
| >> news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0806221102300.656@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| >>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
|
| <snip>
|
| >> Correct. And as long as the interaction is of a contact nature, then
| >> eveything is OK. But when there is a delay between the action and the
| >> reaction, then *for that delay period* momentum is not conserved. But
we
| >> know that momentum MUST be conserved, so we must look at Newton with
an
| >> eye
| >> to modifying it to deal with what amounts to a time dependency.
| >>
| >> This is not a new idea. We have long recognized, for EM that
electrostaic
| >> representations break down when time dependency is present.
| >>
| >> Heaviside suggested this in 1893 but never took it all the way to its
| >> logical conclusion.
| >
| > Heaviside's Maxwellian gravitation? There is no modification of
Newton's
| > laws of motion in it. Newton's law of universal gravitation,
describing
| > gravitational forces as interactions between distant bodies, is
replaced
| > by a field theory, wherein all interactions are local - body interacts
| > with local field, not body with distant body.
|
| You must be looking at a different copy of Heaviside's 1893 article. In
it,
| he clearly (to me at least) understood concepts of time-dependancy, the
| gravitational equivalent of the Poynting Vector (that he claimed partial
| credit for)  and others. I agree that he did NOT deal with retardation.
| Neither did/does Maxwell!
|
| This "action at a distance" has always been an Achilles Heel.
|
| It is resolved, I believe by understanding and applying Causality. We
need
| to understand that if two events occur at the same time, neither can
cause
| the other. Instead, at least one must be caused by some other (hidden)
| event.
|
| Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped
| generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H
and
| H causes E.


You mean this magnet turns on only when the operator throws a switch
because it is a simultaneous but independent event?
 
http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50090267/Electromagnet.jpg

I must say that is a very simple concept - from an extremely simple mind,
****head.

*plonk*