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

"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.

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

art wrote:
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?

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

snip remaining babbling nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

art wrote:
On 9 Mar, 06:45, wrote:

snip old crap

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.

Is this babble supposed to mean something?

If something changes over time, it isn't static.

If it isn't static, static laws don't apply.

See Maxwell and friends for what applies when things are not static.

snip rambling babble

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

art wrote:


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?


Art,

Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865.
The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them
today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However,
Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On 9 Mar, 06:49, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

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?

Art,

Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865.
The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them
today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However,
Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

But he did not associate it with antennas period. In the previous post
I applied the same logic to an antenna array and using the initial
logic that Gauss used and which Maxwell enlarged upon for other
reasons. And to follow the logic applied by Gauss one must focus on
equilibrium such that the static particles on the enclosed antenna
array MUST be in equilibrium or else all falls apart inside the
enclosed border. Remember that static particles reside on the surface
of a radiator when energy is not applied.
It departes from the SURFACE when energy is applied and continues to
do so as time passes by in a time varying form until time stops where
at that time it must be in a state of equilibrium in static form Q.E.D

Get back to the logistics and put all this other gottcha stuff out of
your mind
Art

art wrote:
On 9 Mar, 06:49, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

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?

Art,

Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865.
The detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them
today, was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However,
Maxwell gets the credit for adding the time contribution.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

But he did not associate it with antennas period.

Correct, he described EM fields in general.

In the previous post
I applied the same logic to an antenna array and using the initial
logic that Gauss used and which Maxwell enlarged upon for other
reasons. And to follow the logic applied by Gauss one must focus on
equilibrium such that the static particles on the enclosed antenna
array MUST be in equilibrium or else all falls apart inside the
enclosed border. Remember that static particles reside on the surface
of a radiator when energy is not applied.

Babbling nonsense.

The existance of static particles (whatever the hell they are, I presume
you mean electrons) on the surface of a radiator has nothing to do with
applied energy (other than maybe wind energy).

It departes from the SURFACE when energy is applied and continues to
do so as time passes by in a time varying form until time stops where
at that time it must be in a state of equilibrium in static form Q.E.D

More babbling nonsense.

EM waves depart when energy is applied, not particles.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
art wrote:


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?


Art,

Adding the "metric of time" is exactly what J.C. Maxwell did, in 1865. The
detailed hard work surrounding Maxwell's Equations, as we know them today,
was probably more attributable to Oliver Heaviside. However, Maxwell gets
the credit for adding the time contribution.

unfortunately art is stuck on one of the 4 equations and is ignoring all the
others. if he really understood maxwell's work he would know:

Gauss' Law is for static electric charges and fields.
Ampere's Law is for static magnetic fields, that is fields set up by
constant (read non-time varying) currents.
Faraday's Law introduced the time varying part of the relation between
magnetic fields and currents.
Then Maxwell tied them together with the displacement current into the 4
equations that we have been using and which have successfully been used to
calculate all kinds of electromagnetic phenomena for many years.

By talking about curl of electric fields art is forgetting that this is one
of the representations of Faraday's law:
curl(E)= -dB/dt (E and B are vectors of course) which automatically adds
the time relationship that he is trying to force into Gauss's law where it
has no place.

personally i recommend ignoring him until he goes back to fields and waves
101 and gets the equations straight.