wrote:
Special terminology in this article:
{} indicates superscript (including the power).
[] indicates subscript.
~A means the vector A.
^a means the unit vector a.
four means 4.
(A)[av] means the average of A.
In a capital Greek letter the word "cap." is written.
We show integral around a closed space as circulation.
We show round d (as used in partial derivation) as round.

13 Electromagnetic theory from a new viewpoint
Ed 01.12.31 -------------------------------------------
Abstract
--------
We consider point magnetic charges as the sources of the magnetostatic
fields, like the point electric charges for the electrostatic fields.

Why? Milliken demonstrated the quantization of charge
in some old oil drop expeiment, but there is no evidence
for "magnetostatic charge", on the contrary it's a misnomer
since magnetic effects are *observed* to occur in relativistic
circumstances.
As a concept (as you write about) it might be a good
theoretical tool, but your article doesn't look simpler than
the classical stuff, Maxwell +SR.

Do you predict anything new, or simplify how things work?
Ken S. Tucker

....

Ken S. Tucker wrote:


13 Electromagnetic theory from a new viewpoint
Ed 01.12.31 -------------------------------------------
Abstract
--------
We consider point magnetic charges as the sources of the magnetostatic
fields, like the point electric charges for the electrostatic fields.

Why? Milliken demonstrated the quantization of charge
in some old oil drop expeiment, but there is no evidence
for "magnetostatic charge", on the contrary it's a misnomer
since magnetic effects are *observed* to occur in relativistic
circumstances.
As a concept (as you write about) it might be a good
theoretical tool, but your article doesn't look simpler than
the classical stuff, Maxwell +SR.

Do you predict anything new, or simplify how things work?
It has been shown in the article that Relativity has nothing to do with
the electromagnetic theory.

Hamid V. Ansari

wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:


13 Electromagnetic theory from a new viewpoint
Ed 01.12.31 -------------------------------------------
Abstract
--------
We consider point magnetic charges as the sources of the magnetostatic
fields, like the point electric charges for the electrostatic fields.

Why? Milliken demonstrated the quantization of charge
in some old oil drop expeiment, but there is no evidence
for "magnetostatic charge", on the contrary it's a misnomer
since magnetic effects are *observed* to occur in relativistic
circumstances.
As a concept (as you write about) it might be a good
theoretical tool, but your article doesn't look simpler than
the classical stuff, Maxwell +SR.

Do you predict anything new, or simplify how things work?
It has been shown in the article that Relativity has nothing to do with
the electromagnetic theory.

Hamid V. Ansari

No, your saying there is no need for relativity in EM
if one invents "magnetostatic charge". so what?

Relativity does predict/explain magnetism too, but
much more, like E-mc^2 etc...

It's like saying, "Men have nothing to do with sex because
Hamid invented a dildo", type of an argument.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
oups.com...

| Relativity does predict/explain magnetism too, but
| much more, like E-mc^2 etc...

That's zero, isn't it?

Androcles wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
oups.com...

| Relativity does predict/explain magnetism too, but
| much more, like E-mc^2 etc...

That's zero, isn't it?

Yes, Absolute motion =0, I write that as

0 = U_i = dx_i/ds , i=1,2,3.

That's Theory of Relativity in a nut-shell.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| | Relativity does predict/explain magnetism too, but
| | much more, like E-mc^2 etc...
|
| That's zero, isn't it?
|
| Yes, Absolute motion =0, I write that as
|
| 0 = U_i = dx_i/ds , i=1,2,3.
|
| That's Theory of Relativity in a nut-shell.
| Ken
Wanna race your Fastest Photon against my Cosmic Muon?
Level playing field, you time-dilate or length-contract my Muon,
I nobble your Photon the same way.
As Ghost-in-the-Machine says it, Einstein's relativity is ****ed.
That's Theory of Relativity in a condom.
Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| | Relativity does predict/explain magnetism too, but
| | much more, like E-mc^2 etc...
|
| That's zero, isn't it?
|
| Yes, Absolute motion =0, I write that as
|
| 0 = U_i = dx_i/ds , i=1,2,3.
|
| That's Theory of Relativity in a nut-shell.
| Ken
Wanna race your Fastest Photon against my Cosmic Muon?
Level playing field, you time-dilate or length-contract my Muon,

I nobble your Photon the same way.

Sues welcome to nobble my photons anytime,
you too, if you pay for the booze.

Androcles.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
| ups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| |
| | | Relativity does predict/explain magnetism too, but
| | | much more, like E-mc^2 etc...
| |
| | That's zero, isn't it?
| |
| | Yes, Absolute motion =0, I write that as
| |
| | 0 = U_i = dx_i/ds , i=1,2,3.
| |
| | That's Theory of Relativity in a nut-shell.
| | Ken
| Wanna race your Fastest Photon against my Cosmic Muon?
| Level playing field, you time-dilate or length-contract my Muon,
|
| I nobble your Photon the same way.
|
| Sues welcome to nobble my photons anytime,
| you too, if you pay for the booze.

I was rather expecting the loser would buy.

|
| Androcles.
|