On 7 Dec, 04:16, "Dave" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

...





On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message

art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he got
in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!

Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.

Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.

Derek.

Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field, and
hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the complete
solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to Gauss's law as
it stands alone and completely describe the solution to the fields produced.

i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in it.
by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you can
have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron is just
outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field from that
one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the other and all
still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law. now for the hard
part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the surface without going
through it. we must all agree that while you are moving it the electric
field strength through the surface closest to the charge is increasing, so
in order for the total flux through the surface to remain zero the flux
moving out on the other side must also increase. BUT because of the effects
of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit the speed of propagation of that
field to c it can't happen instantaneously. so for some period of time the
net flux through the surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone.
reductio ad absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Regarding Dr Davis's mathematics. Richard stated the other week that
of course it is correct. If you feel that he also is in error
why not contact him? I am sure he can comminicate why much more
clearer than I
You are now left with the troll KB9... in your efforts to argue that
point
I personaly recognise that I will never be able your mental state up
to par
with respect to Gauss or your troubles with the word equilibrium.
There is hope for you however , Roy now states that NEWTON of all
people is wrong so you do have company in a strange way.
But then it may be company that you wouldn't wish for!
He personally attacked Cecil some timeago. Last week his personal
attack on me
was really venomous so you certainly should not disagree with him in
any way.
I think you would be better off asking guidance from Richard, why not
try it?
Art