Re: Gaussian statics law
- From: jimp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:55:03 GMT
art <aunwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 Mar, 06:45, j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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.
.
- References:
- Gaussian statics law
- From: art
- Re: Gaussian statics law
- From: Jimmie D
- Re: Gaussian statics law
- From: art
- Re: Gaussian statics law
- From: jimp
- Re: Gaussian statics law
- From: art
- Gaussian statics law
- Prev by Date: Re: mobile antenna ground loss
- Next by Date: Re: Gaussian statics law
- Previous by thread: Re: Gaussian statics law
- Next by thread: Re: Gaussian statics law
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|