# Miles' Principles of Electrodynamics Paper

## Miles' Principles of Electrodynamics Paper

Miles has several criticisms of current theorists and their theories:

---------

NEW PAPER, added 10/25/19,

I tear apart the first 50 pages of Melvin Schwartz' famous book.

http://milesmathis.com/schwartz.pdf

---------

Again, fantastically lazy and wrong. Like his colleagues, Schwartz rushes by this as fast as he can, as

if he couldn't care less what the actual mechanism is. He appears to be interested only in math, and

can't be bothered to speak clearly or sensibly about any mechanics, not seeming to realize that all the

math is absolutely dependent upon this mechanics.

On p. 34, he tells us that if we removed all the electrons from two one-gram pith balls 1cm apart, the

force between them would be 100 billion billion tons. Not true, since most of the force between them,

with or without electrons, is determined by their charge fields. That is, by the amount of charge their

nuclei can channel. Jettisoning electrons would help channeling a bit, since it would unclog those

channels. That is why atoms ionize before bonding.

Just below that, he says that in conductors, the electric field causes the outermost electrons to move

relatively freely from atom to atom. Again, no. Only ionized electrons are free to move, and those

always come from the north pole of the nucleus. But even so, it is not the movement of these electrons

that causes conduction or electricity. They may move between adjacent nuclei, but they are mostly

along for the ride. What causes the electric field and responds to it is the charge field—real charge

photons channeling through the nuclei and baryons, and moving between them.

......

You see how he just jerked you? The curl of a straight line equals the curl of a point equals zero? We

have seen other Nobelists fudging us like this, including Einstein, Feynman, Landau, and many others.

But just ask yourself, what is the curl of a point? Curl is a vector operator, and can't be applied to a

point in real space. A vector is by definition a length with a direction. A point or position has no

length or direction, so it cannot have a curl. Nor can its curl be zero. It cannot be anything.

So even if you don't know what curl is and have never seen that upside-down delta, you can see his

obvious fudge here. It doesn't require you understand that operator. It only requires you understand

the difference between a point and a length.

I will be told that Wiki gives us the definition of curl, and it is: “At every point in the field, the curl of

that point is represented by a vector.” So we do seem to have curl at a point. Yes, we have curl at a

point in some mathematical field. Meaning, we create this operator we call curl, we create a field of

those operators, and so every point in that created mathematical field has curl. But we cannot have

curl at a physical point, or a point in space, since there is no extension there. See my papers on the

calculus for more on this. The length (r - r') in Coulomb's equation can't be a length in a mathematical

or operator field, since the r's must be telling us some point in real physical space. In other words, a

position. So the idea of curl cannot be applied. Remember, curl is already a 3D concept, and del or

nabla ∇ is 3D even without curl. It is the partial derivatives in x, y, z. Well, you can't have the partial

derivatives of a point, can you? A point isn't 3D, it is 0D. This is first semester calculus: the calculus

applies to differentials, remember? Intervals. Lengths. Changes. You can't have any change at a

point, therefore you can't have any calculus there. No curls.

---------

NEW PAPER, added 10/25/19,

**Principles of Electrodynamics.**I tear apart the first 50 pages of Melvin Schwartz' famous book.

http://milesmathis.com/schwartz.pdf

---------

Again, fantastically lazy and wrong. Like his colleagues, Schwartz rushes by this as fast as he can, as

if he couldn't care less what the actual mechanism is. He appears to be interested only in math, and

can't be bothered to speak clearly or sensibly about any mechanics, not seeming to realize that all the

math is absolutely dependent upon this mechanics.

On p. 34, he tells us that if we removed all the electrons from two one-gram pith balls 1cm apart, the

force between them would be 100 billion billion tons. Not true, since most of the force between them,

with or without electrons, is determined by their charge fields. That is, by the amount of charge their

nuclei can channel. Jettisoning electrons would help channeling a bit, since it would unclog those

channels. That is why atoms ionize before bonding.

**But to get his number, Schwartz is assuming**

charge equality between protons and electrons, so that if we remove the electrons, the protons are no

longer equalized. But this isn't how it works. To start with, electrons aren't charge matched to protons,

having only about 1/1800 their charge. Besides, forces between macro-objects like pith balls aren't

determined by charge matching of electrons and protons, they are determined by unbalancing EM and

gravity. See my paper on Cavendish for more on that. Also see here.(http://www.milesmathis.com/quantumg.html)charge equality between protons and electrons, so that if we remove the electrons, the protons are no

longer equalized. But this isn't how it works. To start with, electrons aren't charge matched to protons,

having only about 1/1800 their charge. Besides, forces between macro-objects like pith balls aren't

determined by charge matching of electrons and protons, they are determined by unbalancing EM and

gravity. See my paper on Cavendish for more on that. Also see here.

Just below that, he says that in conductors, the electric field causes the outermost electrons to move

relatively freely from atom to atom. Again, no. Only ionized electrons are free to move, and those

always come from the north pole of the nucleus. But even so, it is not the movement of these electrons

that causes conduction or electricity. They may move between adjacent nuclei, but they are mostly

along for the ride. What causes the electric field and responds to it is the charge field—real charge

photons channeling through the nuclei and baryons, and moving between them.

......

You see how he just jerked you? The curl of a straight line equals the curl of a point equals zero? We

have seen other Nobelists fudging us like this, including Einstein, Feynman, Landau, and many others.

But just ask yourself, what is the curl of a point? Curl is a vector operator, and can't be applied to a

point in real space. A vector is by definition a length with a direction. A point or position has no

length or direction, so it cannot have a curl. Nor can its curl be zero. It cannot be anything.

So even if you don't know what curl is and have never seen that upside-down delta, you can see his

obvious fudge here. It doesn't require you understand that operator. It only requires you understand

the difference between a point and a length.

I will be told that Wiki gives us the definition of curl, and it is: “At every point in the field, the curl of

that point is represented by a vector.” So we do seem to have curl at a point. Yes, we have curl at a

point in some mathematical field. Meaning, we create this operator we call curl, we create a field of

those operators, and so every point in that created mathematical field has curl. But we cannot have

curl at a physical point, or a point in space, since there is no extension there. See my papers on the

calculus for more on this. The length (r - r') in Coulomb's equation can't be a length in a mathematical

or operator field, since the r's must be telling us some point in real physical space. In other words, a

position. So the idea of curl cannot be applied. Remember, curl is already a 3D concept, and del or

nabla ∇ is 3D even without curl. It is the partial derivatives in x, y, z. Well, you can't have the partial

derivatives of a point, can you? A point isn't 3D, it is 0D. This is first semester calculus: the calculus

applies to differentials, remember? Intervals. Lengths. Changes. You can't have any change at a

point, therefore you can't have any calculus there. No curls.

## Re: Miles' Principles of Electrodynamics Paper

.

Hey Cr6. I haven’t given the paper a good reading yet, it hurts too much. I have two electrical engineering degrees. I had to learn from many such books for many such classes. It pretty much boils down to – can you follow these directions for solving these problems? Especially with a greatly reduced self-worth having failed calculus the first time. Many years later, without referring to me in any way, Miles mentioned failing calculus was normal. Thanks Miles for many such realizations and thanks for the Charge Field.

.

Hey Cr6. I haven’t given the paper a good reading yet, it hurts too much. I have two electrical engineering degrees. I had to learn from many such books for many such classes. It pretty much boils down to – can you follow these directions for solving these problems? Especially with a greatly reduced self-worth having failed calculus the first time. Many years later, without referring to me in any way, Miles mentioned failing calculus was normal. Thanks Miles for many such realizations and thanks for the Charge Field.

.

**LongtimeAirman**- Admin
- Posts : 1407

Join date : 2014-08-10

Page

**1**of**1****Permissions in this forum:**

**cannot**reply to topics in this forum