Re: Coulomb's constant is a CGS kludge

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:29:02 -0500

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message news:1109853424.785605.299900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sue... wrote:
> > Indeed... when you model assumes "spin faries" to
> > maintain permeabily far from any matter, yet the
> > spin faries seem to have been on holiday for tha
> > last 100 years.... you should expect something
> > to be wrong.
> >
> > Magnetism diminshes by the cube of the distance
> > from a moving charge not by the square as in
> > geometric dilution. That is why inductive loop antenna
> > don't radiate unless coupled to a Coulomb aperture
> > multiplier.
> >
> > Sue...
>
> Are you sure you not mixing up de wahls/tidals
> into that, get clear.
> Ken
>

I don't even know where to buy them to mix in.
"Your search - "de wahls" "tidals" - did not match any documents".
Perhaps some were thrown in by the waiters while my
back was turned. :o)

Maxwell assumes an ether supportive of his
"displacement current". 'Tho Einstein *appears*
to solve the Masxwell's PoR problems by clock
fiddling, the illusion is belied by measured near and far
field inhomgeniites. This result in big mirrors and
interferometers which which should require impossibly high
permittivites to work according to Maxwell's ether model
(... they do work. Hmmm.. )
and small H plane radiators that won't couple to the permeable
entities he assumes. Weber is in many respects a better
model just for contrase. It is inherently relativistic

Neither model explains Coulomb
force or gravitational force or and other fast or slow
action at a distance anyway so that is a wash.

Sue...