B and E are two fields that act on charge, with the former doing no
work. So isn't B just that part of E which does no work? i.e. that
part of E which is normal to the velocity, v, of a charge and so could
be defined as E x v? So every E will have a B that is dependent upon
the path taken by a charge through it.

I want to calculate B for a straight wire using the above idea. I will
calculate the delayed E at a point due to the moving electrons, and
subtract that from E due to the stationary ions which should give zero
since a stationary charge experiences no force in practise. The
problem is why a moving charge, Q, experiences a force if E is zero
there? I suspect it's because it's E will have an effect on the
electrons in the wire because of the finite time it takes to effect
them, which in turn generate an E that effects Q so that an E normal
to v of Q is the net result.

Is this going to be a waste of time, so that I will end up with
something that conflicts with Maxwell's equations?

Thanks in advance.
(??"B is an E"??).

it's E will?

No, start with the expression for F, then isolat your terms
therefrom. It's the current, not the charge, that is affected/
effected by B.

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations
are wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya
think lots of people have tried and failed?

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya think
lots of people have tried and failed?

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad?
Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations
are wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't
ya
think lots of people have tried and failed?

Say, wait a minute! This sounds rather suspiciously like one of those
"Everything has already been invented, so don't bother trying anything
new" statements!

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote
news:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations
are wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't
ya think lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not
enough for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be
written. Maxwell's one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is
an incompressible liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas
(compressible) analogy".
S*

Autymn D. C. wrote:
it's E will?

Hey Autymn Womyn!
You forgot to yell: its!!!!! SHITHEAD!!!!!!

No, start with the expression for F, then isolat your terms
therefrom. It's the current, not the charge, that is affected/
effected by B.

Totally wrong as usual.

But since Autymn has entered the fray let's stray into never-never
land.

First off. E and B are not one thing. They are two different things.
E (electrostatic) is a force developed between charges (coulomb) which
is a result of a connection between charges in higher dimensions.

B
on the other hand is a flow of Aether. When aether flows past a
spinning charge, it creates a "curveball" effect that causes the right
angle forces observed in qV x B.

Note that this force which which is
widely held to be an E is in fact nothing of the sort. It has very
little in common with Electrostatic E. This is easily seen by an
application of the Bridgman "operational" approach to identifying
fields.

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:fa4o5l$mcs$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote
news:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations
are wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya
think lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not
enough for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written.
Maxwell's one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an
incompressible liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas
(compressible) analogy".
S*

No, before the trip an experiment must be devised and performed that shows
that there is no displacement current.

Best,

Fred Diether
Moderator sci.physics.foundations

"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrotenews:5in422F3qovu0U1@mid.individual.net...





"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:fa4o5l$mcs$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote
news:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...
"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations
are wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya
think lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not
enough for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written.
Maxwell's one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an
incompressible liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas
(compressible) analogy".
S*

No, before the trip an experiment must be devised and performed that shows
that there is no displacement current.

Iam sure that this was wrote Bill Miller is thruth:
"The simple answer seems to be, no. There have been many attempts to
demonstrate the interpretation that Displacement Current leads directly to a
magnetic field. None have proven it. The most exhaustive used cryogenics to
attempt to prove the Displacement Current--->H idea. It failed to do so.
(Sorry, I don't have the reference handy.)

An excellent overview of Displacement Current is Roche's "The presen status
of Maxwell's displacement current." Eur. J. Physics 19(1998) The
bibliography is rich. Also see WGV Rosser's book, "Classical
Electromagnetism via relativity." On page 81, after analyzing the magnetic
field of a moving "point" charge, he says, "The Maxwell term (What he calls
Displacement Current) the magnetic field at P... both the electric and
magnetic fileds ... arise from the moving charge."

Rosser says lots more.

Unfortunately, textbooks have ignored all of this, and every online EM
syllabus that I have seen persists with the myth of Displacement Current.

I hope this helps.

Bill "

S*





Best,

Fred Diether
Moderator sci.physics.foundations- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written. Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible) analogy".
S*

epsilon@E@dt. The idea that it generates a magnetic field is the myth,
right?

On Aug 17, 11:07 am, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
"FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com
wrotenews:5ik7guF3qjtfiU1@mid.individual.net...

"Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1187162958.426098.305710@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

So will your little exercise be a wast of time? Who knows? Will it
conflict with Maxwell? Who cares? And why would that be bad? Maxwell
was from the 19th century for crying out loud! Don't you think it's
past time to go back and check his work?

LOL! Anyone that can experimentally prove that the Maxwell equations
are
wrong for Classical EM has an automatic trip to Stockholm. Don't ya
think
lots of people have tried and failed?

It was already done. Displacement current do not exist. But it is not
enough
for the trip. Before such trip the new Treatise must be written.
Maxwell's
one is based on the "hydraulic analogy" (current is an incompressible
liquid). The new Treatise must be based on the "gas (compressible)
analogy".
S*

Wrong. Only Maxwell's first (1859) EM paper was based on the analogy
with incompressible fluid. His second EM paper (1861) was based on
his fantastic 'gears & wheels' model - that got the 'right' answer.
Maxwell's masterpiece was his 1864/1865 paper that adopted a
Lagrangian model for the aether (a 3D elastic solid with some weird
properties that would give him the 1861 answers). The 'displacement
current' was a distortion of this aether. Maxwell rejected the idea
that electricity was some kind of 'stuff' (like electrons) that was in
motion through space. Since all of his equations (now viewed through
the Heaviside lens) were the differential result of macroscopic
experiments one will never prove these equations 'wrong' at the
macroscopic level as this is where they came from in the first place
and these correspond to reality e.g. Faraday, Oersted, etc. The real
problem with this approach (that is still followed by modern field
theorists) is that it is based on the 'continuum hypothesis' (so that
the mathematical differential limit is assumed to correspond to
reality). Unfortunately for all these math-mad Pythagoreans,
experimental physicists have demonstrated that the world is discrete
(electrons, protons etc) so non-continuum math is needed at the micro
level, not all this lovely calculus that has been the focus for over
350 years.