Re: Chubykalo and Vlaev's basic mistake

Tom Roberts wrote on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:20:44 -0500:

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):

Once again you delete all explanations, and then claim there was no
explanation. This is unfair.

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

C&V addressed Jackson mistake, which you repeated twice. I have added
some more explanation on what was Jackson mistake (and yours) but you
continue deleting...

You already used (A)-(C) as flawed argument before, but you insist now
and I will add some comments on why you are also wrong on this.

If you had understood the difference between equation (8) and (9) cited
in previous message you would automatically understand that for the cases
you are citing above you may use the equation 9 in their paper; I repeat
the *equation 9* in their paper, *not* the equation 8.

Again, it is clear you do not understand the difference between (8) and
(9).

However, C&V understood the difference, and Landau understood the
difference (remember that C&V took expressions 8 and 9 from Landau
textbook).

Feynman also understood the difference between (8) and (9) and indeed he
used when developed his famous QED diagrams.


--
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
http://canonicalscience.org
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how euro are you
    ... >audience are simply repeating their own petty doubts ... >and fears about integrating with the rest ... accounts for 10 years, an explanation, apology and compensation to 3rd ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Carbon neutral
    ... Still waiting for your explanation, ... It's like a bloody broken record. ... Do you imagine that repeating over and ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Herbies Joni Letters
    ... or on the act of commenting on something by simply repeating ... it with no further explanation? ... You were trying to mess with Joey's mind like Doug unintentionally did ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)
  • Re: Herbies Joni Letters
    ... or on the act of commenting on something by simply repeating ... it with no further explanation? ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz)