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

On Jun 29, 8:55=A0pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >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
c=
apacitor.
>
> >> 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'. =A0The 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). =A0It 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. =A0Unlike 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
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 D =3D E =A0 Try to assign units or give names to D or E;
t=
hey have
> to be different and they have to be the same. =A0
> 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
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 D =3D eps0*E =A0 =A0 =A0where eps0 is 8.8e-12
coulombs/vol=
t*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 =A0B =3D 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 =3D 377 ohms in SI units.
> It is true that
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 H =3D E/Z or HZ =3D E in SI units
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 H ampturns/meter x Z ohms =3D HZ =3D E volts/meter.
> H and E are coupled by vacuum's Z =3D sqrt(mu0/eps0)>Your SI approach is
t=
ruly magical. =A0Simply 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
athttp://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. =A0Any 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

Irony is a matter of taste. I will refrain from ad hominem as it is
too undergraduate.
Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
electrons.  This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.