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

On Jun 25, 10:25 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:32:46 GMT, "Bill Miller"

> >That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And
it
> >begs the question of why, in UG cl*****, the instructors don't say
> >*something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but
that
> >they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the
instructors
> >don't know it!
>
> I fervently hope you're not teaching anyone. You're too ignorant to be
> in the business of physics which is that of discerning cause and
> effect. Instead of denying cause and effect, you should be analyzing
> for the underlying science.

And I, John, fervently hope that YOU are not teaching "faith-based"
physics anywhere. There is already enough "dumbing down" in science!

> >Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the
relation****p
> >between E and H? Even ONE?
>
> Tell us, omniscient one, what exactly what is this precious
> relation****p, of which you are evidently the exclusive franchisee?

Here's the dogma: We start with Maxwell's equations and note that the
curl of E is given by the time rate of change of B  and then we also
observe that the curl of H is given by J plus the time rate of change
of D.  Well that's simple enough isn't it? Clearly E causes H and H
causes E!  Hence we all are fat and happy imagining EM waves plunging
through space with E creating the H vectors and H creating the E
vectors as it goes along!  Everybody knows this is how it works! It's
right there in the equations!

Too bad it's all wrong. The form of Maxwell's equations we are using
here are NOT "causal"! That means that one side "equals" the other but
one side does NOT "cause" the other!  The truth that Bill Miller finds
so seldom among those who pretend to be the ultimate source of EM
knowledge to others, is that E doesn't cause H and H doesn't cause E.
BOTH are cause by a THIRD source, namely charge!  This is where
"retarded" potentials come from. But this is exactly why "modern"
physics is so primitive and so wrong. Physicists are too lazy to
bother with the actual situation and always try to use models that are
linear, without any feedback (which nobody understands anyway) and do
not consider retarded causality. Hey that kind of math is just too big
of a pain in the ass anyway, so why bother. You can get useful answers
the other way (most of the time). And where your faith-based physics
fails, just sweep that under the rug. If anyone complains, fire them.

> Here's how I think it works: Volts applied to a coil build up H
> ampturns/meter which when multiplied by mu store momentum B in
> webers/m^2. Upon opening the circuit, momentum B divided by mu
> generates a sizeable voltage back at the original terminals. The field
> B is successively the sink and the source. Yes V causes B and B causes
> V.

Lookee here. THIS is EXACTLY the problem. We have thought with total
disregard of causality!  You've constructed a model that appears to
make sense, but is in fact explaining nothing. A 'true" explanation
would involve a careful delineation of each "retarded" effect. True
causality leads to true retardation. The problem here is that you are
not considering retarded effects which makes you retarded!

:)