- #36
rudransh verma
Gold Member
- 1,067
- 95
I missed your post. Only now I am lookingweirdoguy said:Because without it formula for flux would not be useful. In most cases the reason that definitions look the way they look is just this - they are useful. You can define whatever you want, you can try to define a flux without E, or with E3 or with Eπ. Do what you want, but those definitions would be useless. I think you are wasting your time trying to dig in this issue too much. You should focus on where this definition of flux is used - and it's used in Gauss' theorem.
![Grinning face with sweat :sweat_smile: 😅](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f605.png)
![Writing hand :writing_hand: ✍️](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/270d.png)