On Feb 6, 9:18*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "Richard Clark" napisal w wiadomoscinews:vp8rk6l7d0f4nj2kupb1qtha3s1fh32l8u@ 4ax.com...

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:29:34 -0800 (PST), K1TTT wrote:

Faraday was proven wrong many times by much later experiments.

It would be interesting to see one such example.

Faraday's classic "The Chemical History of a Candle" may be expressed
in archaic language (not really that archaic once you get into the
vernacular), but it is an example of extremely clear analysis and
instruction. *There is absolutely nothing wrong anywhere in that
recital.

Faraday examined the properties of induction - action at a distance -
in equally archaic terms, but with scientifically rigorous methods.
The archaic language was confined to terms of invention.

I see that you understand the Faraday's " archaic language ".
You know also that Faraday newer was wrong.
And, "Yes, indeed it does matter who is "writing history."

In a history by S. Errede is wrote: "Faraday inspired by his discovery of
the magnetic rotation of thinks that it might be transverse vibrations of
his beloved field lines"

Is Errede right?

Faraday wrote: " It seems to me, that the resultant of two or more lines of

force is in an apt condition for that action which may be considered as
equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, like the
aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water."

For me he wrote: "The resultant of two or more monopoles is *equivalent to a

lateral vibrations".

Phlogiston,
as both a term and concept, was an invented word that was current
during his life.

I am sure he used the Phlogiston in correspondence with those who
understood its context. *However, the nature of that correspondence
reveals that neither party "believed" in it as a force of nature, and
merely used the term and concept as a touchstone insofar as it was a
focus of debate.

In other words, for them the debate was over and Phlogiston was an
intellectual dead-end, but the focus of the underlying question it was
supposed to have answered was a question still being discussed.

Like the "if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither of
these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or
magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will
take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention.."

What your dipole prodce: TEM waves or "an effect equivalent to a lateral
disturbance " ?
S*

you must remember, that just because any of those old guys wrote
something it doesn't mean that they believed it even a year later.
they were all putting up theories and trying to connect electricity
and magnetism with just about anything else for many years. it was
even many years before anyone figured out that electricity and
magnetism were related. you would learn much more by using a modern
text that has filtered out all the theories that were thrown away than
reading the raw conjectures of early theorists.