sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 16, 6:37=C2=A0pm, nade wrote:
> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> What do you make of it? Author has doctorate in nuclear physics
> and has over 40 publications in physics journals.
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/OldPhysics.htm
>
> from the web site:
>
> "Now let me consider the (for me) perfectly commonsensical
> view that the practicalities of the measurement process
> must play an unambiguously prominent role in the
> theorizing process: As an example of a theory where this
> was not done (with hugely signi=EF=AC=81cant consequences), we
> need look no further than classical Maxwell electrodynamics.
> In this case, the formalism absolutely requires that the detectors
> used by (inertial) observers to measure =EF=AC=81eld quantities be at
> rest in the observer=E2=80=99s frame.

The EM force which moves a positive charge north
also moves a negative force south. So the
inertial frame he is refers to is not a consideration.

> Thus, if we have two observers,
> each in his own inertial frame, then, since their instruments
> are physical objects and unable to occupy the same place
> at the same time, it is absolutely impossible for these two
> observers to make simultaneous measurements of the
> same =EF=AC=81eld point. In other words, certain choices made
> at the theorizing level have rendered impossible a
> perfectly reasonable thing=E2=80=94that distinct observers
> can have direct knowledge of conditions occurring at a
> particular place at a given time. Phipps=E2=80=99 answer to this
> conundrum is simple: there is no reason on Earth why
> the detector measuring =EF=AC=81eld quantities should be =EF=AC=81xed
> in the (inertial) observer=E2=80=99s frame. After all, the source
> currents which generate the =EF=AC=81eld are not, so why should
> the test particles (which comprise the detectors) be?
> And since the detector need not be =EF=AC=81xed in one observer=E2=80=99s
> inertial frame, why should it be =EF=AC=81xed in any inertial frame?
>
> Following this logic, if we allow the detector to have free
> motion, then the formalism of electrodynamics which follows
> must somehow allow for the parameterization of the detector=E2=80=99s
> motion. A natural candidate for this formalism already exists
> in the equations of Hertz=E2=80=99s electromagnetic theory (the
> known failure of his theory was the fault not of his equations
> but of his physical interpretation) and these are easily
> written down: just take Maxwell=E2=80=99s equations and replace all
> appearances of by . This replacement introduces a convective
> velocity which must be interpreted, and Phipps=E2=80=99 solution is
> to use this convective velocity to describe the motion of the
> free detector. A simple and elegant idea, don=E2=80=99t you think? ...
> but now comes the crux: by this simple process, which
> is driven by the idea that there is no reason on God=E2=80=99s Earth
> why an observer cannot use a freely moving detector,
> the equations of electromagnetism become Galilean
> invariant; thus, at a stroke, solving one of the great
> conundrums of 19th century physics and, in removing
> the primary raison d=E2=80=99=C3=AAtre of Special Relativity (SRT),
> putting a huge question mark over a large chunk of 20th
> century theoretical physics."
>
> ---------------
>
> I'd like to know if the above has any merit or if they are already
> dealt with or counterargued. If so. What are the counterarguments?
> Thanks!

Why reinvent the wheel?

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended


Sue...

>
> nade