Re: Chubykalo and Vlaev's basic mistake

Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
[... more claims that both Jackson and I made a mistake, without
any description or explanation of what that "mistake" is, merely
repeating previous inadequate verbiage]

Until you explain errors in this you have NOTHING (notation from my previous post):

One VERY IMPORTANT technique in physics is to check your formulas using simple and obvious physical situations for which the answers can be easily determined. C&V, and you, need to do this. Here are three simple physical situations which show that C&V's value is wrong and Jackson's formula gets the correct value:

A) consider the source charge at rest in the inertial frame (V=0).
Clearly |R| is constant, and therefore d|R|/dt0 = 0.

B) consider the source charge moving in a circle centered on the
point x,y,z (R.V=0). Again |R| is constant, and d|R|/dt0 = 0.

C) consider the source charge moving straight toward the observation
point with speed v (R.V/|R|=v). Clearly d|R|/dt0 = -v.

[Be careful on this last one: dt0/dt != 1, so my "clearly"
is an overstatement and requires an elementary analysis.
Note that d|R|/dt != -v even though v is the speed of
the source. (A) and (B) have no such subtlety.]




And perhaps you need to consider why C&V's 6-year-old reply to Jackson was never published. Could it be that they realized they made an error, but you don't? You seem to have a large EMOTIONAL commitment to C&V's invalid result, and seem to be basing your "research" on it. It certainly is possible that one of the most renowned figures in electrodynamics (Jackson) is not "ignorant" as you claim, and it just might be that like C&V you have made an error....



In any case, this is PHYSICS, and (A)-(C) above show quite clearly that C&V made a mistake, whether you recognize it or not.


Tom Roberts
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chubykalo and Vlaevs basic mistake
    ... Until you explain errors in this you have NOTHING (notation from my ... physical situations which show that C&V's value is wrong and Jackson's ... consider the source charge at rest in the inertial frame. ... consider the source charge moving straight toward the observation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Chubykalo and Vlaevs basic mistake
    ... C&V did just what you are doing, and no more: they CLAIMED Jackson is ... Even though in their paper they omitted the explicit dependence of the ... The authors already addressed this specific mistake on ... source charge ). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Chubykalo and Vlaevs basic mistake
    ... They pointed what was Jackson error. ... the source charge ). ... You make the same mistake that Jackson did. ... expressions yield the derivatives used. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Chubykalo and Vlaevs basic mistake
    ... source charge ). ... you of course get the same answer Jackson ... You make the same mistake that Jackson did. ... expressions yield the derivatives used. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Chubykalo and Vlaevs basic mistake
    ... physical situations which show that C&V's value is wrong and Jackson's ... There's no point discussing who said what about which, as we seem unable to communicate on the details (we disagree profoundly on what constitutes an explanation). ... So I repeat a method that separates the cats from the dogs: a simple physical situation with a clear and obvious answer. ... This, as Jackson points out, is the the error they made which cancels the absence of the explicit dependence on x,y,z,t in their use of L-W potential. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading