**Ratch,**

You quoted a physicist in your post, so I replied to defend Ohm's Law in terms of physics as best as I could, specifically using Newton's first law of motion. Electronics is it's own field, and will not stand up to criticism from other disciplines no matter how closely related. House painting and portrait painting both use paint & paint brushes, but a portrait painter does not define the word 'paint' in the same way as the house painter. They may both think that their accomplishments are works of art, but one will not always understand or appreciate all aspects of the other's trade.

I am not a physicist, so I am sure I made many mistakes in trying to construct a physics analogy. I am, however, an electrical engineer, and I do know exactly what I am talking about. Ohm's law is valid for any substance that you might care to employ in the building of an electric circuit. If current can be made to flow through the substance, the circuit can be analyzed instantaneously using Ohm's Law at any given moment in time using vector quantities if necessary. That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

My post was not intended to correct errors in your idea, but to express my own opinion about whether Ohm's Law should continue to be considered a Law. I was hoping you would find my opinions, ideas, and interpretations to be collaborative as they were intended, and not as attempts to provoke you or as ammunition to use in attempting to belittle my humble opinions.

gluespill,

You quoted a physicist in your post, so I replied to defend Ohm's Law in terms of physics as best as I could, specifically using Newton's first law of motion.

Ohm's law does not need defending. It is absolutely correct. The question is what is Ohm's law?

Mathematics and physics are two of the foundation sciences of electronics. They cannot and do not conflict with each other.

I also have a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, and believe that I know what I am talking about.

Current does not flow. Charge can be made to flow. Current is flow of charge. Current flow means charge flow flow, which is redundant and ridiculous. Vector analysis is not necessary to describe Ohm's law.

Still don't understand what I am saying? Did you look at the two links I posted previously. http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node50.html#SECTION00066000000000000000 and http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/PhysSci/done/electric/resistnc/Resistance.htm ? So the question in not whether Ohm's law is a physical law or not. Of course it is. But it pertains to the linearity of resistance with respect to current, not the resistance formula V=IR. Ratch

You quoted a physicist in your post, so I replied to defend Ohm's Law in terms of physics as best as I could, specifically using Newton's first law of motion.

Ohm's law does not need defending. It is absolutely correct. The question is what is Ohm's law?

Electronics is it's own field, and will not stand up to criticism from other disciplines no matter how closely related.

Mathematics and physics are two of the foundation sciences of electronics. They cannot and do not conflict with each other.

I am not a physicist, so I am sure I made many mistakes in trying to construct a physics analogy. I am, however, an electrical engineer, and I do know exactly what I am talking about.

I also have a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, and believe that I know what I am talking about.

If current can be made to flow through the substance, the circuit can be analyzed instantaneously using Ohm's Law at any given moment in time using vector quantities if necessary. That is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Current does not flow. Charge can be made to flow. Current is flow of charge. Current flow means charge flow flow, which is redundant and ridiculous. Vector analysis is not necessary to describe Ohm's law.

My post was not intended to correct errors in your idea, but to express my own opinion about whether Ohm's Law should continue to be considered a Law.

Still don't understand what I am saying? Did you look at the two links I posted previously. http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/websumm122/node50.html#SECTION00066000000000000000 and http://www.launc.tased.edu.au/online/sciences/PhysSci/done/electric/resistnc/Resistance.htm ? So the question in not whether Ohm's law is a physical law or not. Of course it is. But it pertains to the linearity of resistance with respect to current, not the resistance formula V=IR. Ratch

Ratch, you seem to have misunderstood me, I you defending you in this case :)

While I do think you've been a bit petty about correcting NaN I also think the slightly aphetic attitudes to correctness have in this case gone too far. I think it is disrespectful to Ohm to knowingly mislabel/misrepresent his law/formula.

My example was only to demonstrate a peril of doing so.

While I do think you've been a bit petty about correcting NaN I also think the slightly aphetic attitudes to correctness have in this case gone too far. I think it is disrespectful to Ohm to knowingly mislabel/misrepresent his law/formula.

My example was only to demonstrate a peril of doing so.

E?in,

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

At this time, I don't think G.S. Ohm would mind. The real problem is that most people do not realize they are wrong to call the resistance formula, V=IR, Ohm's law. Ratch

Ratch, you seem to have misunderstood me, I you defending you in this case

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think it is disrespectful to Ohm to knowingly mislabel/misrepresent his law/formula.

At this time, I don't think G.S. Ohm would mind. The real problem is that most people do not realize they are wrong to call the resistance formula, V=IR, Ohm's law. Ratch

You win

**Ratch**. You are by far the best I have ever seen at picking fly poop out of pepper. I defer to your superior view on all things.