RadioBanter - View Single Post

Richard Clark · June 25th 07, 06:51 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:00:22 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 24, 8:01 pm, art wrote:
He has a Doctorate
and thus he is qualified for some respect
I had to refresh myself on the reasons of his departure..He never
really proved anything.. In fact, at
the end, Richard Clark seemed to be making a pretty good case that he
was misreading, or
misinterpreting the data.. But he never came back to respond to the
last posts.

Hi Mark,

This appeal to the missing authority is a common one used to prop up
lame arguments. However, what is/was in dispute was simply the
terminology of "Gauss' Law" as distinct from what Gauss himself
originated in his own math. The "Law" being used to prove a concept
was, in fact, Maxwell's extension of the statics to the time domain.

Now, this is something that Arthur has crowed as being his own mental
turf as his newly discovered concept from what was written in the dust
on the bookshelf holding Gauss' original work. Arthur has cobbled up a
theory of static energy transmission by his "original" patchwork of
Xeroxed sources.

Of course, we all recognize the outlines of this "theory" as being
Maxwell's contribution, but Arthur says no, it is original to Arthur
alone and all the text books through the centuries have missed this
key concept he has derived to educate us all to usher in a new era of
antennas. Unfortunately Arthur is condemned to tools using Maxwell's
equations (not Gauss) to prove this by producing inferior examples.

Dr. Davis waded into this morass to support Arthur with this "Gauss'
Law" and even went so far as to quote Feynman who also used the term.
However, Feynman (from the same source quoted by Dr. D) fully
acknowledges Maxwell's extension of Gauss while maintaining the term
"Gauss' Law."

This is quite common in science. In the field of Nanotechnology,
resistance is non-linear. With an increasing potential, current flows
in increasing discrete step-like increments (think quanta).
Researchers describe this with their own math and call their extension
"Ohm's Law," but rest assured, Georg Simon Ohm never EVER considered
this possibility in a linear media.

As with the relation between Newton and Einstein, Newtonian mechanics
is now considered to be a first approximation with recent science
being more complete. Such is the correlation between Ohm then and
now. Neither Newton nor Ohm has been disproven, nor are they
incorrect,

What is called "Gauss' Law" or "Ohm's Law" is neither in the late era.
They are merely acknowledgements of concepts that have been extended
and amplified through refinement. As such, nothing has supplanted the
earlier efforts, merely embroidered them for those who get close to
the edges. Unfortunately, this does not describe Arthur's reactionary
and very conservative embrace of dogma. Changing labels on the
bottles does not improve their vintage.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC