selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0408140220.2005f522@posting.google.com>...
>      You have taken great efforts to prove the basic and fundamental
> > mechanisms and certainly differentiated between the two actions
> > responsible for the magnetic field based electromotive force.
> 
> Dear Mr Tamhane, how exactly you noted the connection between the
> mathematical and physical formalism in comprehension of deep
> underpinning of processes in nature. I from my side can only add that
> the mathematical formalism can be true even with some incorrect
> phenomenology. We see many examples in today physics based on the
> principle properly formulated by Feynman: "Philosophers try to tell of
> the nature without mathematics. I try to describe the nature
> mathematically".

      How can nature be described mathematiclly when by nature we mean
physical phenomena? This is something impossible. Concepts cannot be
outcome derived from mathematical equations. Maxwell did predict EM
wave but his mathematical treatment was based on solid foundation of
aether. When aether goes so also the wave. What you said is true that
without mathematical equations physics is incomplete. However
mechanism of the physical phenomenon is of primary importance and I
must say very difficult to come by.
           By calling those indulging in verbose logic philosophoers
and not physicists, Feynman is degrading improtance of concepts. No!
Excellent work can be done without mathematics. Faraday is an immortal
example.

         Rest of what you said, I snip because I fully agree with it.
Give me some time to get acquainted with your work. Thanks.