🚀 go-pugleaf

>> = Wolfgang G. in news:d4duns$rth$1@atlas.ip-plus.net
>  = Jim Black in news:1114299958.791532.132390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

> Note:  Excessive cross-posting removed.  Please don't do that.

It seems more reasonable to me to post one substantial discussion to
several groups than several unsubstantial to each one group.

I'm grateful for your answer which helped me to recognize the serious
error in my reasoning.

My "paradox" is based on two principles:

  1) A change in electric flux through a given area may depend on
     flux changes in other areas (which are impossible because of
     retardation).
  2) Flux integrals through infinite parallel planes, because this
     is a simple and transparent situation.

Now I'm actually astonished at my incredible stupidity: The flux integral
over an infinite plane is independent of the distance of the flux-causing
charge and is always equal to half the net charge. So my assumption that
the flux integrals should change is completely unfounded.

>> Now let us assume one single electric charge and a series of parallel
>> planes p_1, p_2, p_3, ...
>>
>>               :      :      :
>>               |      |      |
>>               |      |      |
>>      +        |      |      |      ...
>>               |      |      |
>>               |      |      |
>>               :      :      :
>>   charge     p_1    p_2    p_3     ...

>> In other words: the first Maxwell equation leads to the conclusion
>> that electric fields cannot change when moving (accelerating) their
>> causing electric charges.
>
> Now this is completely wrong.  Just because the flux of the electric
> field through a plane doesn't change, doesn't mean the field at any
> particular point on the plane doesn't change.  There are many different
> possible fields that have the same flux through a given plane.
>
>> Isn't this a wonderfully concise and convincing paradox?
>
> Actually, I found it disappointingly simple to resolve.

Actually embarrassing for me. Nevertheless I remain confident that
it is possible to construct an analogous paradox based on at least
the first of my above principles.

Cheers, Wolfgang