🚀 go-pugleaf

 Sergey Karavashkin: 
 >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
 >> Harry: 
 >>  >
 >>  >"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
 >>  >news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.859190@wagner.videotron.net...
 >>  >> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
 >>  >> news:3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
 >>  >> >
 >>  >> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
 >>  >> > news:btbcc0$qri$5@titan.btinternet.com...
 >>  >> > >
 >>  >> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
 >>  >> > > news:a42650fc.0401041424.31edb781@posting.google.com...
 >>  >> > >
 >>  >> > > [snip
 >>  >> > >
 >>  >> > > . This theorem is
 >>  >> > > > incompatible with the current system of Maxwell equations.
 >>  >> > >
 >>  >> > > Then you are a crackpot.
 >>  >> >
 >>  >> > Your logic labels Einstein a crackpot...
 >>  >>
 >>  >> Einstein's equations are wholly compatible with Maxwell's.
 >>  >
 >>  >Except for low velocities, Einstein's theorems are incompatible with
 >>  >Newton's equations.
 >>  >Similarly, Ampere's equations are partially incompatible with those of
 >>  >Maxwell.
 >>  
 >>   That's non-sense. Newtonian physics is a limiting case of relativity.
 >> Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi-
 >> static fields). A theory which is a limiting case of another theory
 >> indicates compatibility and specifies why one is the limit of the
 >> other. Two theories which are incompatible make different predictions
 >> about the same phenomena in a way that the difference cannot be
 >> resolved in terms of a domain of applicability.
 >
 >
 >Ugh! You still demonstrate full ignorance of initials of physics -
 >just the things you attempt discussing with such arrogance.

  Sorry sergey, you aren't even on the same page and probably not
on the same planet.

 >You are
 >even unable to grasp, correct solution in physics has to be readable
 >both from right to left and from left to right. Read from left to
 >right the mathematical expression
 >
 >curl B=(4*pi/c)*j ,
 >
 >then try to create a direct-current transformer. ;-)
 
  What's your point? If your point is that you can write down
ampere's law, ok. I believe you can write down ampere's law.

 >Though you anyway will not understand...

  Understand what, sergey? That you can write down ampere's law?
I can understand how you could do that, since most anyone can
regurgitate text from a book, but what exactly does that have
to do with anything here?

 >And to explain you is only to waste time.
 
  Yes, so don't bother. If there is one thing I don't need it's
your personal interpretation of some equations that have been well
understood for many decades and differs from your interpretation.
Explain it to your protege, aleksandr.