Quote:
Originally posted by Boytjie:
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Quote:
I know the derivation in Rickayzen's book.
No you don't, as the rest of your posting proves. In the book Rickayzen points out some fallacies of other methods that ''prove'' the existence of the Meissner effect.
It is still wrong. Why are you not able to explain physics without hiding behind "advanced theoretical manipulations" of mathematics. I can assure you that mathematics is the most impartial judge. When it becomes complicated, it is unlikely that it is describing actual physics. If you need to try and bypass mathematics, like for instance using dubious approaches like renormalisation, the chance is nearly one hundred percent that you are explaining physics in terms of virtual reality; i.e. that you are wrong!! Or most likely as Pauli would have said: "you are not even wrong!"
You already made clear here that you don't even understand simple electrodynamics when you claimed that a steady circular current will emit radiation because ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''. I.e. you naively apply Larmor's formula without understanding that it doesn't hold in this case.

Now you expect that someone could explain to you in a few words how the Meissner effect comes about? I think Prof. Wiles would have more success explaining his proof of Fermat's theorem to his dog.