On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:21:35 GMT, Dave
wrote:
the later chapter i quoted first is not based on electrostatics, and the
formula for gauss's law is always the same. it is not dependent on time in
any form.

I will make one last effort to to set the record straight. In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics". The
5th paragraph of that section states "Gauss' law, [eq omitted]
remains...". Also in that section, he has a table (Table 15-1) that
contains two columns:

FALSE IN GENERAL | TRUE ALWAYS
(true only for statics) |
------------------------------------------------------
Coulomb's Law | Gauss' law
[...] | [...]


Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:

"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

I do not think I can make it any more clear than this.

thank you for not continuing to prolong the misinformation in this
thread.

Do you also accuse Feynman of spreading misinformation? Unfortunately
he died a few years ago.

--John

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:00:27 +0000 (UTC), (John E.
Davis) wrote:

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:21:35 GMT, Dave
wrote:
the later chapter i quoted first is not based on electrostatics, and the
formula for gauss's law is always the same. it is not dependent on time in
any form.

I will make one last effort to to set the record straight. In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics". The
5th paragraph of that section states "Gauss' law, [eq omitted]
remains...". Also in that section, he has a table (Table 15-1) that
contains two columns:

FALSE IN GENERAL | TRUE ALWAYS
(true only for statics) |
------------------------------------------------------
Coulomb's Law | Gauss' law
[...] | [...]

At the bottom of that Table is a footnote explaining the bold arrow of
your Gauss' law. It reads:
"The equations marked by an arrow (-») are Maxwell's equations."

The table equation, and the one you reference in the text are both
Maxwell's.

Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:

"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

That chapter, too, clearly defines the same equation you are making an
appeal to as "Maxwell's equations." Observe Table 18-1 "Classical
Physics"

It is explicitly derived from the treatment as equation 4.1 - also
denoted Maxwell's equations.

"All charges are permanently fixed in space, or if they do move,
they move as a steady flow in the circuit ( so rho and j are
constant in time). In these circumstances, all of the terms in
the Maxwell equations which are time derivatives of the field are
zero."

Equations 4.6 and 4.8, the cross and dot products resolve to zero.

If you crank up the clock, Feynman concludes
"Only when there are sufficiently rapid changes, so that the time
derivatives in Maxwell's equations become significant, will E and
B depend on each other."

We will, of course, recognize this EB relationship as the field of
radiation and further recognize there is no field of radiation without
a significant time factor.

The grad operator, an inverted, enbolded del, is discussed by Feynman
in Chapter 2-4 is a significant element of these equations. The grad
operator obeys the same convention as the derivative notation.

Feynman's instruction clearly shows that Maxwell's treatment (actually
Heaviside's work before him) is a generalization of Gauss to include
time (sorry Art, he got there two centuries ago) and hence describes
Gauss equations as special (zero-time) instances of the generality.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 11, 12:38 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 06:00:27 +0000 (UTC), (John E.


Davis) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:21:35 GMT, Dave
wrote:


I will make one last effort to to set the record straight. In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics". The
5th paragraph of that section states "Gauss' law, [eq omitted]
remains...". Also in that section, he has a table (Table 15-1) that
contains two columns:

FALSE IN GENERAL | TRUE ALWAYS
(true only for statics) |
------------------------------------------------------
Coulomb's Law | Gauss' law
[...] | [...]

At the bottom of that Table is a footnote explaining the bold arrow of
your Gauss' law. It reads:
"The equations marked by an arrow (-») are Maxwell's equations."

The table equation, and the one you reference in the text are both
Maxwell's.

Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:

"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

That chapter, too, clearly defines the same equation you are making an
appeal to as "Maxwell's equations." Observe Table 18-1 "Classical
Physics"

It is explicitly derived from the treatment as equation 4.1 - also
denoted Maxwell's equations.

"All charges are permanently fixed in space, or if they do move,
they move as a steady flow in the circuit ( so rho and j are
constant in time). In these circumstances, all of the terms in
the Maxwell equations which are time derivatives of the field are
zero."

Equations 4.6 and 4.8, the cross and dot products resolve to zero.

If you crank up the clock, Feynman concludes
"Only when there are sufficiently rapid changes, so that the time
derivatives in Maxwell's equations become significant, will E and
B depend on each other."

We will, of course, recognize this EB relationship as the field of
radiation and further recognize there is no field of radiation without
a significant time factor.

The grad operator, an inverted, enbolded del, is discussed by Feynman
in Chapter 2-4 is a significant element of these equations. The grad
operator obeys the same convention as the derivative notation.

Feynman's instruction clearly shows that Maxwell's treatment (actually
Heaviside's work before him) is a generalization of Gauss to include
time (sorry Art, he got there two centuries ago) and hence describes
Gauss equations as special (zero-time) instances of the generality.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC



I'm easily impressed, but none the less I'm still impressed.

Derek.

On 10 Mar, 23:00, (John E. Davis) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:21:35 GMT, Dave
wrote:

the later chapter i quoted first is not based on electrostatics, and the
formula for gauss's law is always the same. it is not dependent on time in
any form.

I will make one last effort to to set the record straight. In volume
II of the Feynman Lectures on Physics, the title of chapter 15,
section 6 is "What is true for statics is false for dynamics". The
5th paragraph of that section states "Gauss' law, [eq omitted]
remains...". Also in that section, he has a table (Table 15-1) that
contains two columns:

FALSE IN GENERAL | TRUE ALWAYS
(true only for statics) |
------------------------------------------------------
Coulomb's Law | Gauss' law
[...] | [...]

Then in chapter 18, section 1 paragraph 3 you will find the statement:

"In dynamic as well as static fields, Gauss' law is always valid".

I do not think I can make it any more clear than this.

thank you for not continuing to prolong the misinformation in this
thread.

Do you also accuse Feynman of spreading misinformation? Unfortunately
he died a few years ago.

--John

John
I thank you for your input and continued attempts to overcome the
barriers placed before you. I don't know what Country you come from
but I apologise that the baggage associated with me was then dumped
upon you and I fully understand your action of withdrawal.
Thanks again for your efforts and I trust that you will not see
this as sign of a new America emerging. It is certainly not the
America I envisaged some forty years ago when I arrived. I think it is
best that I to withdraw . Sometime it takes a hundred years
before science is permitted to move on. A similar thing happened to
George Green of Nottingham U.K. and only reemerged in full by the
presentation by some body else who received the acreditation.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

"art" wrote

John
I thank you for your input and continued attempts to overcome the
barriers placed before you. I don't know what Country you come from
but I apologise that the baggage associated with me was then dumped
upon you and I fully understand your action of withdrawal.
Thanks again for your efforts and I trust that you will not see
this as sign of a new America emerging. It is certainly not the
America I envisaged some forty years ago when I arrived. I think it is
best that I to withdraw . Sometime it takes a hundred years
before science is permitted to move on. A similar thing happened to
George Green of Nottingham U.K. and only reemerged in full by the
presentation by some body else who received the acreditation.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

Yo XG man!

While most of us sympatize with your condition, but your drivell is getting
beyong pathetic, you dumping on America is picture of your messed up
judgement and your "evaluation" of people here is just reflection of who is
messed up.

If you can't get over losing your colonies, or superiority of colonist
inbreds, you are free to go back, Eurabia is waiting for you and will
undoubtly recognize your genius (of calling reflector - director, and having
patent to prove it) and award you cross of the empire or something.

Just what the heck is your "Gausian" contraption suppose to get me that all
other known antennas or my designs don't? Lousy pattern with three lobes
over perfect ground and 6 dB F/B at 200 MHz??? Whopeeeee!!!

God bless America, the last bastion of freedom and the greatest country on
Earth!
Love it, or leave it!

73, cut the crap and get well!

Yuri, ex OK3BU