On Sep 13, 7:04*am, "Dave" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 12, 7:05 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I too am waiting for the answer to his question. Which of Maxwell's
equation(s) contains the weak force and show us specifically which
*term* defines the force. We already know that you took the position
that weak force is included in one or more of the Maxwell equations.

you'll never get the answer. *his only response last night was for me to try
to duplicate one of his rediculous optimizations to get a tilted dipole. *he
doesn't know even the most basic math behind the equations, he has latched
onto the gauss equation drawing (not the equation, just the drawing mind
you) that shows the surface integration around a charged object and is doing
everythign from that... the rest of it is made up from misreading, or just
plain not understanding, other news articles that have some kind of
percieved relation to em fields... for instance his latest fasination with
the weak force is from the use of the term 'electro-weak' force, while this
is well known to be confined to the nucleons in an atom he has extended it
to his fantasy world to explain the tipping of dipoles over ground to get
gain... my recommendation is to keep prodding him for fun, but ignore
anything he says.

In the past his "big discovery" was that, if you put the static charge
in motion, then at any instant in time the Guassian STATIC law still
applies. Then to make things worse, some scientist at MIT posted here
and agreed with that and that he took that as validation for his
entire theory. After he saw where the thread was going, the MIT guy
quickly departed the discussion and left the rest of us here to deal
with the Frankenstein he created. I think it was a type of academic
hazing of the group. From that came the pronoucement, validated by
MIT, that he was able to validate that the 'Maxwell's static equation
(the surface integral) also held true under dynamic conditions'! The
gravitational analog would be something like saying a ball maintains
the same mass at the top of the hill, as it does while rolling, as it
does at the bottom of the hill. Watch out that he doesn't counter with
relativistic velocities; the motion of charge on the antenna is
actually quite slow and in no way relativistic. Of course it is true
that the Maxwell static law would hold true for a moving charged
particle at any instant frozen in time and of course the MIT scientist
would agree with that (the MIT guy even said he had a computer
printout that simulated a moving charge and, arithmetically the
surface integral charge measured at an instant of time was equal to
the charge of the electron...that made me suspicious of his sense of
humor), but so what? We already know that motion does not deplete the
charge on the particle. The charge on the particle is conserved.
Static charge is not the source of the energy that is used (depleted)
to keep the particle in motion. Maxwell already showed that in the
rest of his equations. The fact that an electron maintains the same
charge regardless of its state of motion and therefore does nothing to
change the state of charge equilibrium has nothing to do with how an
antenna works other than the antenna simply obeys Maxwells laws like
everything else.