On 9 Mar, 02:33, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

Gentlemen from outside of America. Gauss's law with respect to statics
is quite specific and easy to understand. What is so wrong in
mathematical terms by adding the metric of time to the law so that
curl can be accomodated? i.e. change from a conservative field where
all vectors have zero length,
to a electro magnetic equation by adding the words " the addition of
time" which by providing a three dimensional field has the true
inclusion of curl i.e. all vectors have value in length and direction.
America denies the feasability of such an addition to an existing law
which in essence is regarded as a new law without basis on this side
of the pond.Are all countries of this mentallity?
Art

Because a static field does not produce an EM field(curl) only if that
static charge is in motion. Motion would even include taking a charged body,
say a pith ball and waving it back and forth. Electrons have a static charge
but when they are in motion in a conductor they produce fields(curl).
Electrons moving about an atom also produces fields but the net result of
all the aoms moving about is zero. PLEASE REFERENCE THE GUASSIAN LAW ON
STATICS. I still think you are confusing static with statistics.

But Jimmie my friend, now you have an understanding of Gaussian law
what is preventing you adding the metric of time or a length of time
to the statics law? What is it that frightens you and other Americans
about that
little step? Start off my looking at it in pure mathematical terms and
determine if the intent of the law is still not violated. Don't go
beyond that at this time just consider the mathematics and get
comfortable with it
Art