Art Unwin wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong
force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range
of effect is confined to the nucleus.

And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements.
For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in
complience of existing laws.

And someone has pointed out something is wrong. As is typical, you avoid the
point and ignore the conflict with your position.

You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying
field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position
where no body provided academic proof.

You provided no proof of you assertion.

Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its
legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space
Agency gives him some what of a track record.

All Dr. Davis stated was the relationship between Gauss and Maxwell. You
claimed to come up with something new, and it was there all the time. He did
not say anything about the validity of your ideas regarding antennas.


I then found out that
one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school.
True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault!
Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give
you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in
independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a
book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no
understanding.
Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which
follows the existing laws
of Classical physics.

Any details you have presented are minimal.

At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory
with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing
laws.

"if there is no violation" means you aren't even convinced.


If you have doubts then contact your alma
to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for
the PTO printing of my
present concluding patent request such that all details are available
for inspection.
This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution
is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can
then continue the discussion.

If you extension to Gauss is just a re-iteration of Maxwell, then you have
presented nothing new.

Time and time again you have shown that you are not willing to discuss. You
do a lot of verbal handwaving, but there is no substance.