Re: Current is a vector
From: FrediFizzx (fredifizzx_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: luke: "Re: Interesting Thought Re: How to write a pseudo scientifical hoax"
- Previous message: David Rutherford: "Re: Failure of SR (and GR)?"
- In reply to: shuba: "Re: Current is a vector"
- Next in thread: shuba: "Re: Current is a vector"
- Reply: shuba: "Re: Current is a vector"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 12:09:43 -0700
"shuba" <tim.shuba@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-3933D8.09403305062004@cp...
| FrediFizzx wrote:
|
| [snip junk physics]
|
| Believe whatever you want. See Halliday, Resnick and Walker,
| _Fundamentals of Physics_, in the unlikely event that you are
| interested in definitions that make sense.
I suggest you read Jackson "Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed." starting on
page 19, section 1.6, "Some Remarks on Idealizations in Electromagnetism".
Jackson avoids the whole issue of the idealization of line charge by not
ever bringing it up! You missed the whole point of what I was saying.
Apparently, it went right over your head.
FrediFizzx
- Next message: luke: "Re: Interesting Thought Re: How to write a pseudo scientifical hoax"
- Previous message: David Rutherford: "Re: Failure of SR (and GR)?"
- In reply to: shuba: "Re: Current is a vector"
- Next in thread: shuba: "Re: Current is a vector"
- Reply: shuba: "Re: Current is a vector"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]