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

On Jun 27, 9:21=A0am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ...
> >A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
> >independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
> >equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?
>
> You are right; retardation is adequately represented by the
> Lienard-Wiechert field, which I also see referenced in my 1962
> Panofsky Philips. They are much cleaner and simpler than Jefimenko's.
>
> This topic is of little practical effect, retardation being a very
> slippery item, and there is enough other disinformation going around
> to bother with these sophomoric maunderings.
>
> For example, it is unconscionable that there are physicists today
> still embedded in cgs, a legacy from their professors with these
> consequences:
> ...
> =A0 =A05. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum
capa=
citor.
>
> Enough. More dismal is the idea that most students do not even know
> the difference between cgs and rmks or SI which have assigned the
> properties of eps0 and mu0 to the vacuum.
>
> The main idea is that there are forces that can store energy in the
> vacuum which energy then turns around and becomes a source itself in a
> completely reciprocal fa****on. And this, without the intervention of
> charges.
>
You are comparing 'apples & oranges'.  The Lienard-Wiechert potential
(not field) is a calculation of the retarded possible EM effects
generated by a POINT charge as might be experienced by another point
charge at another distant point (needed for the approximation used in
the derivation).  It is simpler than Jefimenko's approach as Jefimenko
consistently uses electric charge density throughout and rejects the
phony limit approximation of subsequent point charges (the Dirac delta
'function').

Retardation is not a 'frill' added onto Maxwell's Equations - it is
the fundamental feature of EM that distinguishes EM from Newtonian
mechanics.  Unlike Lorenz, Clerk-Maxwell could NOT handle retardation
as he was introducing a field theory that is only definined at ONE
point in space AND time - all the retardation effects from the source
charges are hidden (lost?) in the calculation of the point field
variables.

Your dismissal of cgs is typical of the 'modern' approach which throws
away the physics & concentrates only on the math; even Clerk-Maxwell
screwed up in 1865 by omitting im****tant factors of c in his most
im****tant EM paper.  But then setting c =3D 1 is sooo elegant, right?
It's only a (physical) constant!

Your SI approach is truly magical.  Simply by changing the units you
are able to conjure real effects out of nothing; in other words, the
vacuum is truly NO thing, it is not an invisible 'spring mattress'
that can absorb energy (another ontological fallacy of modernism) and
release it when required.  Any attempt to develop a theory of EM
without acknowledging the reality of the point electron and its finite
electric charge is worthy of a life-time's free admission to the
Magicians' Hall of Fame or the awarding of the next Fields Medal
(delicious irony here).