🚀 go-pugleaf

dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnc06apt.8e.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> 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.

Just correct, we are on different planets. On your planet people seven
times a day exclaim "Einstein Akbar!!!" and don't care, what a
nonsense they say. On my planet people trust in Experiment, not in
authority on pedestal. These are actually two incompatible positions

> 
>  >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.

"I believe - I don't believe"... What concern has it? As always, you
adhere to your fashion and thoroughly delete the source of my respond.
Your claim was unambiguous:

>Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi-
>static fields)

In accordance with your relativistic manner to substitute the real by
desirable, you tried to tailor the possibility of several equivalent
interpretations of the same phenomenon of nature. Again, re-read the
standard formula for curl of magnetic field induction that I pointed,
from left to right, and on this basis create the transformer of direct
current. There is no my opinion which you as if need not. There is
only your squabble and tendency. ;-)


> 
>  >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?

See, you first, as you used to, snipped the meaning, then are
indignant. What concern has my ability to write down the Ampere's law?
You have already made trite of this formula on this and other threads.
What I said you of it? You want to reduce everything to the
utilitarian - well, speak of yourself and on behalf of yourself. %-)

> 
>  >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.