sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 8, 3:28 pm, "Timo A. Nieminen" wrote:

> No. If you use the Maxwell equations, you are taking retardation into
> account. Notice that you can extract the wave equation from the Maxwell
> equations.

Um excuse me but the usual form of Maxwell's Equations are NOT causal
which is an error right off the bat, PLUS the usual argument
"extracting" a wave equation is usually based on an argument that an E
field "creates" an H field and vice versa. That is a statement
demonstrably incorrect!

> Ah, I see! You want to completely ignore the discussion of the problems
> with AAAD electromagnetic theories, the problems with field theories,
> radiation, and conservation laws, and focus instead on the last sentence.
> You could try addressing what was actually said instead of trying your
> usual cheap debating tricks. (Btw, didn't you claim to have kill-filed me,
> or was that another cheap debating trick?)

I wasn't ignoring it. I pretty much agreed with what you are saying.
As for "cheap debating tricks", Yeah I'm certainly not above using
those, but I really wasn't trying that here. Believe it or not I am
pretty much in agreement with your large exposition. The problem of
failure of Conservation laws, radiation and all the rest IS an
important consequence of including retardation.

I kill-filed you? I don't think so. I never kill-file anyone. (free
speech and all that, you know) If I don't kill-file Radium, I'm sure
not going to kill-file you! It's possible I told you I did as a "cheap
debating trick" ;)

> No, _you_ are saying that physics is a religion. I don't see how a
> reasonable person could interpret a statement that the only definitely
> correct stance is agnosticism as "religion".

Obviously agnosticism is a "religion" (system of belief) but that
wasn't what I was talking about. Agnosticism is a valid position of
science. (I don't know! However the rest of that "this can NEVER be
known" is clearly NOT valid in science) My attack upon Fred was
because of his overt insistence in validity of physics dogma (fields
exist, Maxwell's equations are absolutely true in ALL cases and never
fail, etc.). These statements are clearly matters of "faith" for him
rather than a result of a careful examination of all experimental
evidence. I call matters of "faith" religion. Don't you?


> Physics isn't about "truth", because we don't know, and perhaps can't
> know, what is "true". Physics is about what works, and fields work very
> well. While your last sentence is OTT (there's no need for "constantly" in
> practice), field theories of electromagnetism are pretty much tested
> constantly against observation. And they work, and work well. Where they
> fail (entering the quantum domain) is well-known.

And your point is? Lessee is the earth flat or round? Oh hell, who
can know? Who gives a damn? Our current navigation maps work pretty
well around our known world so why bother with these stupid questions?
EVERYBODY "knows" the earth is flat and "modern" navigation "proves"
it every day! It's pretty much tested constantly every day by ships
sailing the Mediterranean and where it doesn't work (off the map where
the sea monsters be) the failure is well known.

Do you realize that this is in essence what you are arguing?