On Jan 4, 3:54*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

As a doctor working for M.I.T I feel he is qualified enough on the subject
such that he deserved a hearing as well as a certain respect.

then get him to come back and explain himself, you obviously can't
understand what he was talking about if he is that far above you.

As yet nobody has shown any reason why the mathematics should not be
accepted so until that point comes about my work stands

you haven't shown any math that could be disproven... besides adding one 't'
to an equation that didn't need it.

You are welcome to your opinion! To change my thoughts how ever you
need to provide fact that specifically
address what I state as what is untrue. If you can't be specific in
providing relavent discussion
then I am comfortable with what I have found.
I would love to read something that addresses my findings
that prove them to be in error so I may rethink my position, a
position that any
engineer should be happy to do rather than throwing things to hurt.
I have made no effort to hide my identity as the owner of the stated
thoughts.
The foundation of my work is the elargement of a static law to make it
a dynamic field in accordance with the laws of Maxwell.
Since you and others have rejected the feasability of that aproach as
well as the accompanying math I see no reason why you should pursue
me! I agree to disagree, what is so wrong with that?
Art
I am open to changing my mind if proven in error but the fact is that
all I get is diversions to discuss at the behest of other posters