On Apr 24, 11:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 24, 10:47*am, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....
On Apr 24, 7:48 am, Art Unwin wrote:

Please allow me to correct myself on the above

you never did answer my question, but thats ok, you never have before
either... now you try parsing the language and think that provides
insight... just write the equation, what is equilibrium in your mind? *i
know this is tough, you are so far out of balance anyway, but try to amuse
me a bit and write a concise definition of 'equilibrium'.

I will be happy to David
It is balance as referred to by the mathematical equal (=) term where
all metrics can be placed to one side and summed to the *value of
zero. In physics it represents the physical laws of Newton and other
where "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" as used in the
time worn uses when establishing a arbitrary border as per Gauss's law
of Statics or Maxwell when determining the absence of metrics deduced
the missing *levitational force( displacement current) in his law's or
calculations. All of which were established by observations thru the
years of the Universe with respect to Earth in relative form . ( See
Einstein's law of relativity) This can be seen as motivation of the
Grand Universal Theory which Einstein gave up on because of his
failure to identify what is known as the "weak force" which is part of
the standard model of physics. It was Foucault that much, much later
that found or discovered the displacement current which is what I
determine to be the "weak force" and also the required metrics that
Maxwell added to his equations to represent the measure of
equilibrium.
The above explanation is probably longer than what is usually found in
terms of words but I tried to relate to the evolution of physics with
respect to that same word to provide better understanding rather than
describing it in niche terms of mechanical and electrical terms of the
physical Universe
I thought you were getting bored with physics!
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ..xg

While putting my definition down with respect to equilibrium it seems
a good time to expand it to why particles and not waves are the
subject of Maxwell's laws.
Both Maxwell and Gauss generated arbitrary borders in their summation
of the laws of statics and the laws of radiation. The only difference
between them is one descibes a static fiels while the other descibes a
dynamic field both of which the forces must be summed up to equal
zero. It was Maxwell you changed the static field to a dynamic field
when he saw that the metric of time was only on one side of the
equation which meant that the unlikely discovery of an equation that
was not in equilibrium within the boundaries of the environment under
consideration. Thus he expanded the law of statics by making it
dynamic which required the addition of the metric of time which would
cancel out when establishing the presence of equilibrium.
It should now be obvious to all on this group struggling with waves
versus particles
that when changing the field to dynamic one must recognise that mass
or particles are present in this action and not waves. This provides
authenticity of my personal position of the presence of particles in
radiation and all laws of our Universe.
Hopefully the above will convince all other members of this group as
well as those that deny the presence of the Grand Unification Theory
but I will not hold my breath.
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ xg