>> >> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one
>> >> variable,
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> on classical formula will be subject to quite a few vagaries in the
> way magnetic components are handled in the field equations.
Not if charge is quantized, which it is in reality. This forces a lower
limit
to field equations that is seldom taken account of. In other words, in
reality, charge can never tend to zero. If charge is present, the lower
limit can only be unit charge by nature.
> I offered that URL just because it is a good hypertext starting point
> to explore how the various expressions of dielectric fit together (or
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> It for you to write words to go with your music.
They are written.
But I found that no one not really interested listens anyway.
The few who are will find their own way.
> This might get you in the ball park. :o)
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentumFour-Vector.html
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PoyntingVector.html
I happen to be the pitcher in this inning, and I just threw the ball.
Just curious to see if any batter can even see it coming.
André Michaud
sue jahn - 29 Jul 2005 07:37 GMT
> >> >> Local field definitions for individual photons, involving only one
> >> >> variable,
[quoted text clipped - 77 lines]
> reality, charge can never tend to zero. If charge is present, the lower
> limit can only be unit charge by nature.
Are you saying we don't need to consider spin?
Sue...
> > I offered that URL just because it is a good hypertext starting point
> > to explore how the various expressions of dielectric fit together (or
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> André Michaud
srp - 30 Jul 2005 12:55 GMT
>> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
>> >> news:
[quoted text clipped - 84 lines]
>
> Are you saying we don't need to consider spin?
Not required for velocity calculation.
André Michaud
sue jahn - 30 Jul 2005 13:42 GMT
> >> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
> >> >> news:
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
>
> Not required for velocity calculation.
I would think you would only get a statististical result.
That itself wouldn't prevent ~compliance~ with a modern
or E/H averaged Maxwell field tho.
If time permits I'll try to apply a bit more rigor to your
equations. That is an interesting approach.
It is not surprising that gamma would not
be required as you are using the entities which would
establish gamma.
I'll have to pass on the classical challenge tho' because
I know where a few of Maxwell's skeletons are buried.
Sue...
> André Michaud
srp - 30 Jul 2005 14:07 GMT
>> >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
>> >> news:
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
> That itself wouldn't prevent ~compliance~ with a modern
> or E/H averaged Maxwell field tho.
I can assure that these equations owe nothing to statistics.
> If time permits I'll try to apply a bit more rigor to your
> equations. That is an interesting approach.
I am impressed.
So few are up to even consider stepping out of the comfortable
groove that orthodoxy forces them into. Even plain logics can't
spark any curiosity in the overwhelming majority.
I'll give you an extra hint for your research then.
These are the electromagnetic counterpart of Newton's
first law. They are the engine under the first law's hood.
> It is not surprising that gamma would not be required
> as you are using the entities which would establish gamma.
In a manner of speaking yes. There is only one fundamental
reality.
> I'll have to pass on the classical challenge tho' because
> I know where a few of Maxwell's skeletons are buried.
The ball is yours.
André Michaud