On 9 Mar, 06:45, wrote:
art wrote:
On 9 Mar, 02:33, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

roups.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?

Because by the definition of "static field" nothing changes over time.

snip remaining babbling nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jim, it is the logic applied that produces the law is what you should
be concentrating on since that same logic can be applied elsewher.
Think about a conservative fiels and what it represents. The static
particles have vectors on them with a direction which one can use as
the
moment of forces IF the particles were acted upon. However in the case
of static particles there can be no movement and by logic there can be
no vectors. So looking at our conservative field with its vectors we
can use the same logic applied for a static field by expanding the
logic to include time whether it is zero time divided by two as with a
conservative field
that imagined the addition of that time and included a vector length
of zero
because after all the vectors were added as a product of time that was
zero.
Thus we can place true value vectors with true values using the same
logic but placing a true value to time rather than a ficticious value
of time in the case of a conservative field. Ofcourse since time is
not now ficticious the right angled vector representing projection is
part and parcel of time variance such that the vector must represent
curl. Imagine the above is in a science book and the professor asks
you to poke holes into it as an assignment. Your response surely would
not be a jeering contest or you get a failing grade so think
responsibly about the above and try to fault the use of the logic
applied and not on one instance where it was known to be applied.
Art