"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Neil:

"Bilge" wrote in message
e-al.net...
Neil:
"Bilge" wrote in message

Well really, I do, if the reference to the article was
important
to
your point.

Well, it isn't. What I mean is, my point stands on its own as an
issue
about how charged particles behave in free fall in tidal fields.

That would be true if I knew what was your point [see below].

My point was, what is the self-force on a charge falling through a
tidal
gravitational field, and what are the implications of that force, in
general. Well?

I thought I made that clear. (1) There is no tidal force on a charged
particle. A charged particle is a point, (2) The bottom line is the
charge doesn't radiate.

As I explained, it *has* to radiate if it undergoes oscillatory motion!
Don't confuse that with the constant acceleration case. Think of the
airless tunnel through the earth. The electromagnetic field changes with
time near any point on the earth, and that has to propagate and carry off
energy (consider that the Poynting vector is very close to any other
radiant source's) Are you saying that in the case of the tunnel, the
earth's gravity is strong enough to *nullify* the field - it can't. Yes,
ithe radiation would be weak, but the oscillations must be measured at a
distance, and that entails energy (Just consider: start the oscillation at
a certain time, and the EM wiggles must continue to move throughout space
like any other EM wave. You have made the mistake of thinking in terms of
certain parameters that seem intuitively critical to you, but ignoring
other conditions that *must* be satisfied. Our experience in history of
physics is that nature does what it must to preserve conservation laws,
even if that mucks up other nice expectations.

That is what I'm talking about, too. If you are talking about
some
other effect, then I don't know what it might be. That is why I
wanted
to see the article.

OK, I realize that we have to be careful about "radiation" because of
the
comingling of what would happen with no charge present (intrinsic to
space

There's no ``comingling'' here to consinder. That was the point.

[...]
It really doesn't make any difference. For example, the exterior
schwarzchild metric for a black hole applies to the earth for a
radius
(r R_earth). The analysis is the same.

"The analysis", but not the relative degrees of involvement.

Yes, it is. Plug in the coordinate acceleration into the
larmour formula.

But if you use "coordinate acceleration" that supports my own contention
that the charge in the diameter tunnel radiates and experiences the
Lorentz-Abraham self-force! (BTW do you really appreciate what that
means?) : even though in free fall, it's *coordinate* acceleration changes
as I described, although of course an inertial accelerometer registers
zero acceleration at all times (regardless of tidal field per se.)

In any case,
why not try your hand at the direct points I made, rather than just
going
around tangentially so much. Look at my argument about self-force, and
forget the NS material until you can look at it more.

I did. You just weren't reading what I wrote. If you want a different
answer, calculate it yourself. It's not that hard.

I did read what you wrote, and noted that it was tangential to the crucial
issues. I did calculate the relevant implications of the changing
coordinate acceleration that you seem to accept some places, but you still
don't get what that entails: radiation and self-force pertaining to
charges falling in tidal fields. Your referencing the heat bath etc. could
be relevant, but you fail to show how that undermines my point based on
other criteria, what degree of correction it would have on the basic
classical formulas based on v dotdot, etc.