That may be. You, by contrast, never get the correct answer.
Funny that you should claim that you see a splinter in my eye while not being able to even look past the colossal wooden-beam in your own eye.
As always, everything you post contains basic conceptual errors. I'm very bored with conversing with you,
Then why do you not stop? Do you like to be bored?
I, in contrast, converse back because I find it absolutely astonishing and incredible that
you can claim any physics-knowledge while it is apparent that it is impossible that you even understand the most elementary aspects of physics and mathematics which have already been known more than 150 years ago.
What fascinates me is how you are able to espouse incorrect physics so fluently and with such self-confidence. At first I found it hilarious that you intimated that you are teaching physics at university level. I hoped that you were kidding: However, after contemplating the development of physics since 1927, I realised that all of us who studied physics after that date have been swindled and hoodwinked: This also included me: My eyes only opened after my discovery of superconduction at room temperature.
It is thus probably not really fair of me to become aggravated when you espouse incorrect dogma and when you refuse point blank to accept even the possibility that most of the theoretical physics, developed during the past 100 years, has been wrongly interpreted and that, in many cases, derivations have been made which simply violate well known elementary physics-facts as well as elementary calculus.
Our generation of physicists have all been victims of the Copenhagen Voodoo. You are just a typical example of what brainwashing can achieve. I must thus rather pity you for being so blind to reality. I realise that it does take courage to consider an alternative to what you have been fed with, and regurgitated, for many-many years. Unfortunately you do not have that courage: However, this does not excuse your lack of logic when deriving solutions from Maxwell’s equations. The experiments on which these equations are based have been very clear long before Maxwell derived his differential equations, and any solution of these equations, which cannot be commensurate with these experiments, must be wrong: Let us now consider the rest of your inane comments:
so I'll just take your first point: "You do not realise that if you have free charge-carriers within a material which can be accelerated, an applied electric field can never be cancelled within such a material while a current is flowing. This is primary school physics."
You have that wrong (of course). It is the presence of free charge carriers that allows applied E-fields to be cancelled.
ONLY under static conditions is this statement of yours correct. It is, however, impossible for free charges to cancel any electric-field while they are carrying a current through a material. What you are clearly ignorant of is that electrodynamics demands that the cancellation of an electric field require that ALL free charges within the material must re-arrange at mechanical barriers (usually surfaces or interfaces of the material) in order to become static charges; and only in this way can they generate a polarisation field which, only under these static conditions, cancels an electric-field within the material: This is simple, simple electrostatics which should have been taught to you in primary school. If some of the free charges within a material are MOVING, there must be and will be, according to the laws of electrodynamics, an electric field present.
The presence of additional (steady) currents doesn't change that.
Oh my! Oh my! Dead wrong, AGAIN!!
For instance, suppose the free charge-carriers have arranged themselves so as to cancel an applied E-field, and then in addition one adds a current. If the resistance in the material is zero (as in a superconductor), the current will be constant and the E-field remains zero (although of course the B-field is not).
What has the “resistance” of the material got to do with the cancellation of an electric-field within the material? Absolutely NOTHING! Whether the charge-carriers experience “resistance” when they move into stationary positions in order to cancel an applied electric field, or whether they experience “no resistance” when moving into static positions to cancel the same electric-field, makes no difference at all. After the free charge-carriers have statically arranged to cancel an applied electric-field, it is impossible for any kind of current carried by free charges to flow while maintaining this cancellation of the electric-field. To repeat: When a current is conveyed by free charge-carriers, you have non-stationary free charges, so that an electric-field can then NOT be CANCELLED AT ALL; whether the carriers find a resistance to their movement or no resistance at all does not matter and plays no role in this regard whatsoever.
That follows immediately from Maxwell's equations.
Just as in your previous posts, this is another example of your uncanny “ability” to “derive” a “solution” from Maxwell’s equations which is nothing else than pure unadulterated physics-claptrap. This one is THE REAL WHOPPER which has been surfacing in different formats within your posts, and which compellingly proves that you do not even understand primary school physics and mathematics!
I am thus going to call your bluff: I challenge you to give your “derivation” from Maxwell’s equations proving how and why free charge-carriers, while conveying a current from one contact to another, can cancel an applied, conservative electric field within a material between the contacts; just because, as you claim, these charge-carriers supposedly do not experience resistance to their motion. I will then point out to you where your incompetence in elementary physics and elementary mathematics are; and hopefully in the process save your present and future students from being ignoramuses.
Although I am not as naïve as Reality Check, who thinks an argument is only valid if you can quote it verbatim (in words and equations) from a text book (most probably because he cannot think for himself), I will take the liberty to refer you to the “Feynman Lectures on Physics”, vol. II, section 5 where Feynman discusses in sections 5-2 and 5-3 the equilibrium of electric charges within an electric field. If after reading this, you still believe the claptrap that you have spouted in your previous post, and which I have quoted just above, then PLEASE get out of physics and do something really useful for human society: What about washing dishes, sweeping the streets, whatever!
Or if you still persist with your illogical physics-claptrap, then allow me to collect money for the following epitaph on your grave when you die: “Here lies “your-real-name” who taught physics: He argued that, after free charges have arranged themselves within a material to cancel an electric-field within such a material, the injection of charges to generate a steady-current through the same material, still allow the original cancellation of the electric field when the resistivity of the material is zero.”
Future generations of REAL physicists who pass by your grave will then have a LOL and will begin to understand why modern physics developed into Voodoo during the 20th century. If I had time, I would have liked to write a book on all the silly arguments you have posted on this thread. I already have a cover for the book: Your avatar; and a title: The Folly of Solly Invictus. Hopefully I will find the time to do this in the future. It must be important for people to realise how badly a physicist (if you are one?) can misunderstand physics.
It's mildly interesting, if not surprising, that your near-absolute wrongness in physics extends to your view of this thread and its participants. Nearly all of the exchanges we've had here began with false statements you've made about physics, us trying to explain to you why they're false, and you not getting it. That happened over and over and over and over. After all that, we've formed a pretty solid opinion of you and your abilities in physics - and it's hard to think of anything further from "prejudgement".
I made one serious mistake which I have corrected. You have consistently made far, far bigger mistakes; so have those who supported your misguided illogical reasoning on this thread: But all of you refuse point blank to admit when you have made a mistake, or even that you could be wrong: Except in one case, when Ziggurat made a not too important slip-of-the-lip involving the Hall effect. But since then zilch! After I pointed out to Ziggurat that his argument on superconducting magnets is nothing else than poppycock since he ignored displacement currents, he has consistently tried to worm himself out of this embarrassment, instead of just honestly admitting that he was wrong.
It seems that you all reason that physics must be determined by majority vote and not by experiment and logic: When the majority is hell-bent on defending accepted dogma, even though it is crystal clear from elementary physics that this dogma is nothing else but Voodoo, you insist on arguing that the majority must be right. It is of course any person’s innate right to make a fool of him/herself: It is thus your free choice, and also of the other participants on this thread, who like you, do not understand elementary physics already established more than 150 years ago, to live in cloud-cuckoo land; but do not insult me for refusing to do the same.
Scientific peer review, like all other human systems, is far from perfect. But if the papers you had rejected were anything like the quack nonsense you've been telling us here, it worked quite perfectly in your case.
If it is far from perfect, then why exacerbate it to ensure that it must become totally corrupt as it is at present? NO expert with self-respect, integrity and repute will hide behind anonymity. Thus, within the established fields of physics, the peer reviewers must of necessity, with very few exceptions, be chosen amongst quacks that protect one another; no matter what the real facts are.
I am looking forward to your “solution” of Maxwell’s equations, which supposedly proves “that free charge-carriers conveying a current “without resistivity” can simultaneously cancel an applied electric-field while they convey this current”. You do not have to do it in detail: You can just summarise it by stating from which point you start your so-called “solution”, and which of Maxwell’s equations you use to reach the conclusion “that an applied, conservative electric-field can be cancelled within a material that has no resistance when free charge-carriers convey a current from an injection contact to a target contact through this material”.
!