Weber Electrodynamics

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Higgsy » Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:49 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Higgsy wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

So are you suggesting that Maxwell’s equations (Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism) have no relation to reality?
You'll need to ask Tesla. It's his quote.

Why did you post it then? Do you or don't you think that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (the subject of this thread) has no relation to reality. Either you think it does or it doesn't have a relationship to reality. If you think it does then the quote is inappropriate and irrelevant. If you think it doesn't then you have to explain how come Maxwell's theory, based on the integration of a number of experimentally determined laws (Gauss's law, Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law and Ampere's law), after 150 years of being tested in tens of millions of real-world experiments, is still regarded as an accurate description of electromagnetism in the classical limit. By those people who work with it everyday.
Higgsy wrote:Or is that quaotation just an excuse for not understanding them?
Your knowledge of what I understand equates to nil. However, as it's Tesla's quote, do you think he didn't understand them?

I don't give two pins what Tesla did or didn't understand. From what you have posted I know that you don't have the mathematical equipment to understand Maxwell's equations. No-one who had would be inveigling against maths in physics like you do. Which means that you don't understand electromagnetic theory. It's obvious that you can't do a simple undergraduate problem in electromagnetism. Like almost everyone else here.
There's nothing wrong with using maths to describe a given phenomena as you may understand it, the problem is when you start putting the cart before the horse and believing the formulas somehow prove your theory to be the one and only arbiter of all things truthful. Unfortunately all you do is chase the rabbit down the hole.
Who said anything about using the "formulas" to prove the theory? The expressions, such as Maxwell's equations, are a mathematical description of reality. Whether or not they are an accurate description depends on experiment. But you can't understand the description, and therefore the physics, without the maths. The classical theory of electromagnetism is Maxwell's. It's mathematical and relies on vector calculus of fields. Without the maths, you don't understand how electricity and magnetism behave. In the real world. Physics without maths is like Shakespeare without words.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Higgsy » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:51 pm

D_Archer wrote:Science is not math. Science is observation first, so a picture is the first language of science. Science is also measurement, after measurement you get data, data is a language of science. Science is also experiment, an experimental result is the language of science. See, you can do science without any math.

Wrong, wrong wrong. You cannot do physics without maths. Physics is a quantified description of the world and its language is mathematics. That is the nature of physics. If you describe the world without maths, then that's poetry, or art, or journalism, or religion, or science fiction, or stamp collecting. It ain't physics. Take the most elementary subject in an undergraduate physics course, the physics of simple harmonic motion. This is foundational for a huge range of more advanced topics.

How do you describe the motion of a pendulum in a way that is predictive? "I looked at it and it went to and fro about once a second" doesn't cut the mustard. The simplest physics, the simple harmonic motion of a mass on a spring is described by a function that plots the position of mass over time. And that position turns out to be given by a sinusoidal relationship (where a sinusoid is a trigonometric function derived from the ratio of sides of triangles with different angles). I have expressed it in words but it is mathematical nevertheless: x(t) = a cos (wt) where a is the amplitude of the motion and w is a constant which depends on the weight of the mass and the spring constant (w2 = k/m where k is the spring constantband m is the mass). You can derive this expression from measuring a large number of different masses on different springs, but you can also derive it from Newton's laws (describing the relationship between force and acceleration) and Hooke's law (describing the tension in a spring as a function of extension) by setting up and solving a second order linear differential equation. The expression enables you to predict the position at any time of any mass and any spring acting under gravity given the initial conditions. The description of the simplest physical system in physics, a simple harmonic oscilllator, is mathematical. But there's more. If you know the values of the constants a and w for the position of the spring as a function of time you can derive the velocity and acceleration at any time by simple calculus. And there's more - knowing a and w, you can calculate the total energy of the system at any time, and you can partition that energy between potential and kinetic energy as a function of time. if you don't do calculus you don't understand the simplest physical system there is, a simple harmonic oscillator. You can describe the simple mathematics of a simple harmonic oscillator using words, but that's just an inefficient notation. It's still maths.
You go wrong at 1), an experiment is done first, the results can later be modeled (and/or put into a theory), described in math, diagrams, just plain English. When the theory is correct it may or may not be predictive and you could use it as a basis for other experiments, but it does not come first. Also before someone does an experiment one first uses intuitive thinking to come up with the experiment in the first place.
Who are you, knowing no physics, to prescibe how physics is done? Physics is a dialogue between theory and experiment. Sometimes the hypothesis comes first, sometimes the experiment, sometimes it's hard to tell what comes first, so tightly integrated are the experiments and the hypotheses. You think the experiment that detected the Higgs boson came before the hypothesis?

You can analyze data as a person and intuit many things without math.
But that isn't physics - it's divining.

I would say that only mathematicians would prefer math, not real physicists. Math is a tool, it is not any more capable in theory building than a language is.
Then you don't know any actual physicists. I don't know a single physicist, and I personally know hundreds, who would disagree with the statement that mathematics is the language of physics.

Let's turn this around. Can you cite any subject in physics which can be understood without understanding its mathematical theory?

ps. i think the real physics of E/M need more than just ions and electrons, we need a subfield (ie photons) to explain it all and maybe more....
There you go - complete nonsense. What in the name of Beelzebub is "sub-field"? Pure word salad and a complete waste of bandwidth.

Oh, and EM theory isn't just about ions and electrons, which you would know if you had the faintest idea about it. You don't even realise that Maxwell's theory predicts electromagnetic waves and the speed of light. The phenomenon of light and many of its characteristics just fall out of the theory. Isn't that beautiful? As for photons, and how they relate to electromagnetic waves, you have to understand quantum theory, another one of those pesky mathematical theories.

Your dissmissal of the importance of maths in physics is one of the reasons that you guys will never be taken seriously.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby celeste » Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:37 pm

Higgsy wrote:Who are you, knowing no physics, to prescibe how physics is done?

Let's turn this around. Can you cite any subject in physics which can be understood without understanding its mathematical theory?



Your dissmissal of the importance of maths in physics is one of the reasons that you guys will never be taken seriously.
celeste
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Researcher720 » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:13 am

Higgsy wrote: " One of your difficulties is to convince plasma researchers that the inconsistency you see in Maxwell's theory, is actually inconsistent (I don't think it is)."

Can you provide more details, please? Privately, if you prefer. I really want to understand where my argument fails to convince researchers, so your input would be of value to me. You can reach me at WeberElectrodynamics@gmail.com

My argument that Maxwell EM has some problems is given at
http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Max ... xwell.html
and is essentally:
1) Considering Maxwell's equations as a logical/mathematical system, it uses the same symbol for two different conditions (same "thing", E, but under two different conditions.) This leads to a E not equal E contradiction.
2) Independent of (1), if you do the calculations in Ampere's Law (curl B = mu Jf + 1/c^2 @E/@t), and using the potential function definitions for E and B, you can't get the left side of the equation to equal the right side unless you impose some restrictions: @rho/@t = 0, and v = 0, where v is the velocity of the observation/detector position. With these two restrictions, you can get left and right sides of Ampere's Law to be equal.
3) I've never seen Maxwell's 4 equations written for discrete charged sources. And Griffiths and Jackson says that there are issues with Maxwell with discrete sources (the magnetic induction field of a discrete charged particle.) Yet discrete charged sources is more fundamental than continuous sources. Weber starts with discrete sources and can extend, as an approximation, to continuous sources.

I'd really like (and expect, if anyone here is serious about physics) someone to come along and say either:
1) I've done the Ampere Law calculations and you are wrong, it works out. Here are the steps. Or
2) I've done the Ampere Law calculations and you are right. I've confirmed what you said.

Doesn't look like either is likely on this forum. Any suggestion for another forum?
Researcher720
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:58 am

Researcher720 wrote:Thanks, Higgsy, for your response.

Note that in Maxwell's electrodynamics, considered as a mathematical, logic, system,
not considering the physics, that it uses the symbol "E" for two different things. Yes,
I agree that the so called "static" case is a special case of the "dynamic" case, but
it is using the same symbol for both cases. That leads to a contridiction.

There is no contradiction and there is only one definition of E using electric and magnetic potentials. What you call the static case is simply a special case of the full expression. Always E = -grad phi - @A/@t (using your notation below), but @a/@t can be zero where A is non-time-varying. Just because a term can go to zero doesn't make an inconsistency

Set that argument aside.

When you see
div E = (1/e0) rho
how do you know that E = -grad phi - @A/@t ("@" here mean partial derivative)
or that E = -grad phi is being refered to?

It's always E = -grad phi - @A/@t. Under some physical conditions @A/@t could be zero. No inconsistency.
That's what I am pointing
out. By *doing* the math, I find E = -grad phi
is the correct choice, and that E = -grad phi -@A/@t is not the correct choice.

Well, you'll have to show me how you conclude that that the E in div E = (1/e0)/rho cannot be defined with the full expression for E. It's all the same E as far as I can see.
So, there
needs to be some indication of this in/with the equation. As I point out on the web page,
there are a couple of different ways to do this. One is to explicitly state with the
equation that @A/@t = 0 is being applied. Nothing wrong with that.

Can you show that div E(x,t) is not equal to rho(x,t)/e0 if @A/@t is not zero. What does Gauss's law in differential form state for a time-vaying charge density?
But then this restriction must be applied to all other equations thereafter.
As a system of equation, taken as a whole, you can not impose a restriction just on one equation and not on all other equations.
But you haven't shown that this restriction must apply.
The second problem with Maxwell's electrodynamics that I point out does not depend on
the first problem (the above problem). Again *doing the math* shows that for Ampere's
circital law with the displacement current term requires (for the least number of restrictions)
the use of E = -grad phi, and not E = -grad phi - @A/@t, together with 2 restrictions. That's math, not physics
(although Ampere's law can be applied to physics, of course). Since it is math, it is provable.

So, can you show where the inconsistency is in Ampere's law if we allow both terms in the definition of E using potentials? Mathematically? You don't show that on your website.
Also, do you have a reference showing Maxwell's 4 equations for discrete sources? I think I read that there
isn't such a thing because Maxwell's 4 equations is only defined for the continuous source case. (I think
this had something to do with the definition of the magnetic induction field being defined only for
continuous current sources.) Is this true?
Not as far as I know.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:07 am

Researcher720 wrote:Higgsy wrote: " One of your difficulties is to convince plasma researchers that the inconsistency you see in Maxwell's theory, is actually inconsistent (I don't think it is)."

Can you provide more details, please? Privately, if you prefer. I really want to understand where my argument fails to convince researchers, so your input would be of value to me. You can reach me at WeberElectrodynamics@gmail.com

My argument that Maxwell EM has some problems is given at
http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Max ... xwell.html
and is essentally:
1) Considering Maxwell's equations as a logical/mathematical system, it uses the same symbol for two different conditions (same "thing", E, but under two different conditions.) This leads to a E not equal E contradiction.

There is only one E and so not contradiction. See post above.
2) Independent of (1), if you do the calculations in Ampere's Law (curl B = mu Jf + 1/c^2 @E/@t), and using the potential function definitions for E and B, you can't get the left side of the equation to equal the right side unless you impose some restrictions: @rho/@t = 0, and v = 0, where v is the velocity of the observation/detector position. With these two restrictions, you can get left and right sides of Ampere's Law to be equal.
Can you expand the expressions step by step, using the full potential function definitions to show the inconsistency?
3) I've never seen Maxwell's 4 equations written for discrete charged sources. And Griffiths and Jackson says that there are issues with Maxwell with discrete sources (the magnetic induction field of a discrete charged particle.) Yet discrete charged sources is more fundamental than continuous sources. Weber starts with discrete sources and can extend, as an approximation, to continuous sources.
You'll have to expand on that as well. I don't see why Maxwell shouldn't apply to discrete point charges.

I'd really like (and expect, if anyone here is serious about physics) someone to come along and say either:
1) I've done the Ampere Law calculations and you are wrong, it works out. Here are the steps. Or
2) I've done the Ampere Law calculations and you are right. I've confirmed what you said.
Well if you lay out the expansion of Ampere's law using the potential definitions of the fields step by step that lead you to a mathematical contradiction, I promise to review your logic step by step and say whether I agree or disagree.

Any suggestion for another forum?
Physics Forums, Physics Stack Exchange, International Skeptics, forum at xkcd. You can google more.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Researcher720 » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:19 pm

Higgsy, (and anyone else willing to look at math) I have provided another web page providing the details for the verification of Gauss's Law, showing why there needs to be some adjustment to the notation used in Maxwell's 4 differential equations. Please look over the page
http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Max ... Gauss.html

Your input would be welcomed.

For the verification of Ampere's Law, that will have to wait until the weekend because it is a much more involved derivation.

As for my comment that Griffiths and Jackson don't define the magnetic induction field, B, for discrete charged particles, I am wrong. Jackson, 3rd ed., p. 176, eq. 5.5 is for B and a single charged particle. Still, I am not seeing Griffiths nor Jackson defining Maxwell equations for discrete charges.
Researcher720
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:43 am

Researcher720 wrote:Higgsy, (and anyone else willing to look at math) I have provided another web page providing the details for the verification of Gauss's Law, showing why there needs to be some adjustment to the notation used in Maxwell's 4 differential equations. Please look over the page
http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Max ... Gauss.html

Your input would be welcomed.

For the verification of Ampere's Law, that will have to wait until the weekend because it is a much more involved derivation.

Yep, I'll have a look at these, but just to warn you that I'm very busy over the next few days so it might be a while before I can respond.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:58 am

Higgsy wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
Higgsy wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla

So are you suggesting that Maxwell’s equations (Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism) have no relation to reality?
You'll need to ask Tesla. It's his quote.

Why did you post it then?
Because I wanted to and it seemed appropriate to the thread content.

Higgsy wrote:Do you or don't you think that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism (the subject of this thread) has no relation to reality. Either you think it does or it doesn't have a relationship to reality. If you think it does then the quote is inappropriate and irrelevant. If you think it doesn't then you have to explain how come Maxwell's theory, based on the integration of a number of experimentally determined laws (Gauss's law, Gauss's law for magnetism, Faraday's law and Ampere's law), after 150 years of being tested in tens of millions of real-world experiments, is still regarded as an accurate description of electromagnetism in the classical limit. By those people who work with it everyday.
I wasn’t offering up any criticism of either the OP nor Mawell. You took it as a kind of affront for some reason. I guess Tesla offends you for some reason.

Higgsy wrote:
Higgsy wrote:Or is that quaotation just an excuse for not understanding them?
Your knowledge of what I understand equates to nil. However, as it's Tesla's quote, do you think he didn't understand them?

I don't give two pins what Tesla did or didn't understand.
Shame. You might learn something. Although that’s much easier with an open mind. Clearly he recognised the problem relying on maths as if it’s scripture. Clearly you can’t/won’t. Not sure which.

Higgsy wrote:From what you have posted I know that you don't have the mathematical equipment to understand Maxwell's equations. No-one who had would be inveigling against maths in physics like you do. Which means that you don't understand electromagnetic theory. It's obvious that you can't do a simple undergraduate problem in electromagnetism. Like almost everyone else here.
Fortunately neither I nor probably most other open minded posters her don’t give two pins about what you purport to know. I have no problem with maths. I just know its place.

However, as the resident self-proclaimed maths genius maybe you will now answer the question I had on the LIGO thread. I’ll bump it later for your perusal.

Higgsy wrote:
There's nothing wrong with using maths to describe a given phenomena as you may understand it, the problem is when you start putting the cart before the horse and believing the formulas somehow prove your theory to be the one and only arbiter of all things truthful. Unfortunately all you do is chase the rabbit down the hole.
Who said anything about using the "formulas" to prove the theory? The expressions, such as Maxwell's equations, are a mathematical description of reality. Whether or not they are an accurate description depends on experiment. But you can't understand the description, and therefore the physics, without the maths. The classical theory of electromagnetism is Maxwell's. It's mathematical and relies on vector calculus of fields. Without the maths, you don't understand how electricity and magnetism behave. In the real world.
I’m not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point or if it genuinely escapes you. Yes, of course a mathematical description of reality can support and/or even predict experimental outcome but that’s not the point. The point is the theory CAN STILL BE WRONG. Hence 1,400 year errors like Ptomely. Arguing over Maxwell and Weber is like arguing over Shakespeare’s grammar. Both meaningless and not worthy of contemplation, which is why no-one is answering, but you just took it as an opportunity to disparage the members here.

Higgsy wrote:Physics without maths is like Shakespeare without words.
Yes, Shakespeare’s words describe his play like maths describe physics. And both can be described in general terms as well. Also, before he wrote his plays he would have created an outline and made sure it was logical and made sense.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:26 pm

Perhaps Higgsy is bounded in a nutshell, but does not have bad dreams.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Researcher720 » Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:43 am

I have posted my demonstration that Ampere's Law is not mathematically correct. You can review it at

http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Max ... mpere.html

As I mathematical show, there are two implicit restrictions to Maxwell's electrodynamics (in this case, Ampere's Law). One of these is that v_T, the velocity of the test body (or detector or observation position), must be zero. This, then, reduces the Lorentz force equation to be just F = q_T E. It is a good thing that Weber's force equation contains the complete Lorentz force F = q_T E + q_T v_T x B.
Researcher720
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Sandokhan » Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:35 am

The Heaviside-Lorentz equations are not the original Maxwell equations (1861).

The Maxwell equations, written in dynamical form, are invariant under Galilean transformations.

The original set of the J.C. Maxwell equations, written in quaternion form, has additional terms for the "Lorentz" force equation.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17029

Specifically:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe5.pdf

Only the original set of Maxwell equations can explain the generalized Sagnac effect formula:

Image
Sandokhan
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby neilwilkes » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:45 am

Firstly, anybody who genuinely believes that physics is all done "with maths" is part of the problem.
Physics should be based on experimentation, with any models derived from the experiments. If a single verifiable experiment disproves any mat5hematical construct it is the construct that is in error, assuming the experiment was properly designed & the results were properly analyzed, and therefore the mathematical model that must be changed, no matter how elegant it might be, as it has been falsified.
To borrow a quote from Einstein:
...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts in order that we may not be unconsciously be ruled by them


Getting back to Maxwell - there are many more than 4 equations.
Maxwell's original work has been edited & altered, both by Heaviside and even more by Lorentz who literally discarded the entire class of Maxwellian systems that are in disequilibrium. Lorentz revised the Maxwell-Heaviside equations to make them amenable to separation of variables and closed analytical solutions. These are not Maxwell's equations, nor are they the truncation of Maxwell's theory by Heaviside et al

Additionally, Maxwell's electrodynamics is a material fluid flow theory, and it assumes a material ether (which is something Einstein also worried about). Anything that fluid systems can do, electrodynamics systems can do (at least in theory) because their mathematical models are the same form. So when one cites known examples of fluid driven systems where the energy to run the system is freely furnished by the active environment, analogous electrodynamic systems in active environments - and in disequilibrium exchange with that environment - must also exist in nature. Indeed, particle physics requires it and proves it. These are the systems arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz' symmetrical regauging in every university.

(with thanks to Tom Bearden)
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Researcher720 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:49 am

neilwilkes wrote:
Additionally, Maxwell's electrodynamics is a material fluid flow theory, and it assumes a material ether (which is something Einstein also worried about). Anything that fluid systems can do, electrodynamics systems can do (at least in theory) because their mathematical models are the same form. So when one cites known examples of fluid driven systems where the energy to run the system is freely furnished by the active environment, analogous electrodynamic systems in active environments - and in disequilibrium exchange with that environment - must also exist in nature. Indeed, particle physics requires it and proves it. These are the systems arbitrarily discarded by Lorentz' symmetrical regauging in every university.

(with thanks to Tom Bearden)


Can you provide references! I'd love to read them. Particularly about the fluid model and Maxwell's original theory. I know about the Heavyside alterations, though not the specifics. Anything in modern form? I find the original 1800's work very hard to understand because of language and symbols and math are not exactly as we use it today. Thanks!
Researcher720
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Weber Electrodynamics

Unread postby Higgsy » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:36 am

Researcher720 wrote:Higgsy, (and anyone else willing to look at math) I have provided another web page providing the details for the verification of Gauss's Law, showing why there needs to be some adjustment to the notation used in Maxwell's 4 differential equations. Please look over the page
http://www.weberelectrodynamics.com/Max ... Gauss.html

Your input would be welcomed.

OK - I have had a quick look at this but before I comment, could you tell me what gauge you want to work in?
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests