"Dave" wrote in message
news
ov6j.253$va7.168@trndny08...
"Dave" wrote in message
news:uQa6j.10850$3W.8630@trndny04...
"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:50 am, "Dave" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message
art has now added gravity to gauss in addition to time... what has he
got in
his gut?? whatever it is i'll take a double!
Dave
"It" is called "courage of his convictions" something you cant
buy.
Do you still say you cant add the variant of time to Gauss's law?.
Derek.
Gauss's law is a law of 'electrostatics' as art so frequently states.
STATICS is static, ie NO current which would be implied by adding a time
component to the charge or field predicted by Gauss's law. If you have a
time variable charge you have a current, if you have a current then you
have to include the magnetic fields, and the curl of the electric field,
and hence end up needing all 4 of Maxwell's equations to define the
complete solution. So yes, i say you can not add time variations to
Gauss's law as it stands alone and completely describe the solution to
the fields produced.
i.e. simple proof. define any shape surface with no charge enclosed in
it. by Gauss's law the net field through that surface must be zero. you
can have charges sitting just outside of it, lets say a single electron
is just outside of one side of the surface. if you integrate the field
from that one electron it goes in one side of the surface and out the
other and all still adds up to zero net field as require by Gauss's law.
now for the hard part.... move the charge a little bit closer to the
surface without going through it. we must all agree that while you are
moving it the electric field strength through the surface closest to the
charge is increasing, so in order for the total flux through the surface
to remain zero the flux moving out on the other side must also increase.
BUT because of the effects of the other 3 Maxwell equations that limit
the speed of propagation of that field to c it can't happen
instantaneously. so for some period of time the net flux through the
surface is not zero as would be require by Gauss alone. reductio ad
absurdum, QED, take your new theory and....
hmmmm, 24 hours and no rebuttal? come on, some of you art suckups that i
haven't plonked yet must surely have a logical reason why this isn't
correct? maybe the new non-newtonian static electrons get magically
pushed through the integration surface and make up for the extra field?
oh wait, then they wouldn't be static any more would they? and where it
the diamagnetic surface that they levitate from?? oh well, back to the
10m contest, thats even more fun than pinging this group.
Should be easy enough to check the claims. If as Art suggests there is a
constant interchange of particles in the surface element of a radiator, then
some detectable physical changes should take place. Construct an antenna
using anodised aluminium (aluminum for US readers) for the radiating
element. Take some smaller (non resonant pieces) and mount them some
distance away from the antenna but exposed to similar environmental
conditions. Leave for a year or so and then examine the radiating element
surface and compare with the samples. Is there any difference in the surface
structure?
The samples should be non resonant, of the same batch material as the
antenna and arranged so that they are not likely to radiate or absorb RF
energy from the test antenna, while still being exposed to the same
weathering and other factors as the test antenna.
Mike G0ULI
Using anodised al