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

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:23:50 GMT, "Bill Miller"
<billmillerkt4ye@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0806260615270.660@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "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>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> 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. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
>>> physicists from publi****ng articles in peer-reviewed publications that
>>> "proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
>>> generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours
and
>>> dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between
the
>>> plates of capacitors
>
>>

>
>Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They
are 
>being TAUGHT them.
>
>The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the
replies 
>in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that
H 
>causes E and vice versa.
>
snip
>Strong agreement here!
>
>>> Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the 
>>> relation****p
>>> between E and H? Even ONE?
>>
>> Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of
advanced 
>> (or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2 
>> physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see

>> them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that
don't 
>> get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near 
>> future, I will look.
>
>Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say 
>something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relation****p 
>between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes
erroneously 
>interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful

>analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges
and 
>the movement of charges.""
>
>Not too hard.
You are full of beans. As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
the antenna, a good ****tion of the energy exits as EM waves that take
off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization
of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as
they go along.
Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
the dark matter problem.
By the way which do you prefer:
	D = E  and B = H
or	D = eps0E and B = mu0H  ?

>>>>> The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields
in 
>>>>> a
>>>>> time-dependent environment.

Whoever wrote the above is unaware that it should be Change of D field
to affect magnetic fields. Unless D = E.

>>>> I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and
the
>>>> other describes a limited set of experimental observations.
>>>
snip
>
> >There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE
>> (or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s
>
>Is this the one in his "Guidelines to Antigravity"?
>
>Bill
>
>> about the weak-field limit of GR.
>>
>
>> Timo Nieminen - Home page:
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
>> E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
>> Shrine to Spirits:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
>> 
>