"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3ffbed28$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbvmv8g.93j.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > Harry:
>
> SNIP
>
> >  >Except for low velocities, Einstein's theorems are incompatible with
> >  >Newton's equations.
> >  >Similarly, Ampere's equations are partially incompatible with those of
> >  >Maxwell.
> >
> >   That's non-sense. Newtonian physics is a limiting case of relativity.
> > Ampere's law is a limiting case of maxwell's equations (i.e., quasi-
> > static fields). A theory which is a limiting case of another theory
> > indicates compatibility and specifies why one is the limit of the
> > other. Two theories which are incompatible make different predictions
> > about the same phenomena in a way that the difference cannot be
> > resolved in terms of a domain of applicability.
>
> Now this is a point that has been a bit foggy to me for a long time, and
> advice is welcome.
>
> Ampere's electrical force law uses the third law of Newton.
> According to a number of people, the third law of Newton is violated with
> Maxwell's and relativity theory.

That is incorrect.  Newton's third law is never violated.  Those people who
say so are simply unaware of the frour-momentum transferred to the field.

> But despite reading about it, and despite
> the apparent simplicity of the issue, I'm still not sure if they are right
> or not; it seems you disagree. Perhaps the issue is more subtle than that?
>
Franz