On Nov 10, 12:24*pm, "Frank" wrote:
I am also pleased that the present generation are using up to date
material and not the books of 50 years ago
where those taught at that time all was thought to be known and all
change was resisted.

Art, I am not sure what you mean. *This material has not changed
in over 100 years. *To quote from Ida's text, pp 731, 732: *"Based
on the inroduction of the displacement currents in Ampere's law,
Maxwell predicted the existence of propagating waves, a prediction
that was verified experimetally in 1888 by Heinrich Hertz. *This prediction
was based on the nature of the equations one obtains by using Maxwell's
equations. *We will show here that Maxwell's equations result, in general,
in wave equations". *This proof is shown in "Example 12.3", which is
posted on my previously referenced web link:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Unless you can show, by manipulation of Maxwell's equations, that it
is possible to obtain a 2nd order partial differential equation where the
independant variable is time; what is the point? *I should also note
that a course I took in electromagetics (About 1983) has an almost
identical development of a wave equation. *For reference the text is:
"Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields", Clayton R Paul, and
Syed A Nasar, published in 1982, ISBN 0-07-045884-7, *pp 241 - 243

73,

Frank.

Frank, a couple of years ago I explained the inter weaving of Gauss
law of statics
with that of Maxwell. I twas this that met the most resistance of the
this group.
They seemed to see staics as something divorced from electromagnetics
and thus
one could not use equations of one with respect to the other. Thus
when it was shown
that the statics mathematics equated with Maxwells laws every body
said that was not valid.
The text you supplied made specific reference to this mathematical
interplay whilst talking about quasi
statics tho they never did the interface that I did. It was this
rejection at the beginning that set the stage
for years long rebuttle to the ideas that I put forward. To this day
pretty much all are of the position that interfacing
statics with dynamic fields or time varying currents was totally
invalid which I put down to the education they received some 50 years
ago.
It was for that reason I was delighted to see a modern book that
treated the subject with startling clarity.
About 2 years ago a white paper was put out by two scientists that
covers the Aether and its driving relationship
to the Universe as well as revisiting the thinkings of the past with
which they outlined questions that the present aproach
seem to gloss over, as well as the revolving constituents( not foam)
of the fast moving and revolving Aether and comparing present day
notions
of the Univers as opposed to their own findings. This paper is
excellent and shows that many present day notions could be way of the
mark
Thus it pleases me that many are still questioning or reviewing the
logic of electromagnetics including the more modern works of Planck in
light of present day advances which certainly does not reflect the
attitude of many in this group. In science and physics it is not a
crime to challenge the thinkings of the past regardless if it may
result in change as age of a theory does not present the idea of
validity goes along with seniority
As an aside modern books still refer to waves in electromagnetics but
I feel this is a result of not understanding how radiation occurs and
thus concluding it similar to magnetic lines of force where as I
theorise it is the multi quantity of elevation and projection of
charged particles with spin such that straight line trajectory is
maintained , a must for transmission of radio communications by virtue
of the "weak force"
Regards
Art