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

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <spsi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>On Jun 27, 9:21 am, 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:
>> ...
>>    5. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum
capacitor.
>>
>> 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; 
snip
SI has it right with the right units and cgs has it wrong with no
units. Cgs cannot assign units because they have been frittered away
for convenience. 

Forget the Maxwell equations. Look at the constitutive equations. 
cgs has 
	D = E	Try to assign units or give names to D or E; they have
to be different and they have to be the same.  
In cgs it is impossible even to talk coherently about what either one
of those two terms mean. 
Note that cgs gave away the coulomb for the bogus emu or esu or
whatever, and the volt for the statvolt which is not even volts. Then
in trying to account for electrostatic force they insert the bogus
"Coulombs' constant". Who authorized another constant-certainly not
Coulomb!
E is naturally volts/meter as is surely determined by the hardware:
two plates, a battery and long division. In SI or rmks we have
	D = eps0*E	where eps0 is 8.8e-12 coulombs/volt*meter
(farads/meter) and E is volts per meter, so D is coulombs/meter^2.

I can assert E as the cause when I connect the battery, and D the
displacement charge density as the effect. 
Notice that after the capacitor is charged, and the battery removed, D
takes its place as producing the same battery voltage at the two
wires, only now D is the source: D/eps0 generates E.
The situation is no better for B and H in cgs. 
In cgs	B = H 
What nonsense! Here again the cgs protagonist must remain mute or make
a fool of himself if he tries to explain to anyone what the equation
means.
Vacuum has the impedance Z = 377 ohms in SI units. 
It is true that 
	H = E/Z or HZ = E in SI units
	H ampturns/meter x Z ohms = HZ = E volts/meter. 
H and E are coupled by vacuum's Z = sqrt(mu0/eps0)
>Your SI approach is truly magical.  Simply by changing the units you
>are able to conjure real effects out of nothing; 
No not change units, introduce units. I would be pleased if you would
list as many of cgs units with their numerical values. I haven't found
any.
All this is assumed in a void vacuum using conventional fields. But I
have already confronted and solved this problem of how to store energy
in a vacuum and it's in my permittivity paper at 
http://www.dualspace.net.
It shows a pairspace that must lie "under" our space to make this
possible.
>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).
Your attempts at biting irony are so pathetic.
John Polasek