On 3/24/2010 6:20 PM, Dave wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:22 am, wrote:
On 3/23/2010 7:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

your whole concept is malformed. if the 'static particles' are in
'equilibrium' (i.e. not moving) and then you add a time varying field

Equilibrium does not mean not moving.

I won't go any deeper since you have problems with things complex and go
into babble mode when confronted with them.

tom
K0TAR

oh, so you understand art's concept of 'static' and 'equilibrium'
enough to argue that side of it?? how do you 'equilibrium' and
'static particles' unless they aren't moving? equations please, show
your work, extra points for deriving how his magical levitating
diamagnetic neutrino fits into the equations. please, we need someone
who can fill in the gaps that art can't seem to do.

No, I don't understand Art's concepts, who could? But I do know that
equilibrium is not generally defined as "not moving". In fact motion is
not even mentioned. Look it up. I did.

And I have no argument with the current state of affairs within
Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, and no desire to argue it, either. It
was a big enough pain in school.

What makes you think I was arguing his side? I couldn't disagree with
him more.

tom
K0TAR