Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Energy density; the correct one



Bob LaMontagne wrote:

I would definitely prefer the word creative to hairbrained in this particular
instance. while I am firmly conviced that the no work is done on the non-moving
charge, I'm not totally convinced at this time that the d(phi) term has no play in the
energy-inertia equivalence.

I think this situation is akin to the one involving a the loop of wire
and the magnet. Before Einstein, people thought that the magnet moving
through the stationary loop was completely different than the loop
moving over the stationary magnet. Einstein said that they were the same
thing. I'm not comparing myself to Einstein; I'm just saying that it's
they same kind of situation. You're doing the same amount of work on a
stationary charge, to keep it in place, while you move a second charge
in, as you would if you kept the second charge stationary and moved the
first charge toward the second. Same thing.

I'm only half way through reading the paper - it's fairly
conventional physics except for the work claim.

You haven't got to the good part yet :-). I haven't included the work
part, yet. I just thought of it last week during my posts, here. I'm
working on a new section that deals with it. Some things you might need
to know about my paper; pay close attention to my warning in the
introduction about not assuming that my definitions are the same as
conventional physics. People have misinterpreted alot of things because
of a misunderstanding of the definitions. For example, the partial
squared in equation (12.7) is the same as in (4.22); it's not the
D'Alembertian operator. This makes (12.7) a four-dimensional Poisson's
equation, not a wave equation. If J=0 (the field has a current density,
but it can be zero if the positive and negative densities cancel), it's
a four-dimensional Laplace's equation. This, I think, describes
wave-particle duality, with the sinusoidal part of the solution
describing the wave aspect and the exponential part describing the
particle aspect.

BTW, thanks for taking the time to read it.

--
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf
"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.