On Sep 15, 10:21*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:30*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), 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?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law
of statics illegal ?
Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field
into a dynamic field?
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal. Until then......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie

No, it is not pointless because it enables particles at rest ON
radiators. to be implied. This has been the problem for decades that
has prevented advancement. This extension thus moves away from the
idea of parts removed from the radiator itself. Referring to books is
like saying "all is known". So the question posed is all important
because, if true, it means that a radiator can be any shape size or
elevation as long as all contained is in a state of equilibrium.
Now all avoid the question because they say they don't understand the
word "equilibrium."
So I posed the question to a antenna optimizer where it responded with
a non planar design in equilibrium. Never mind whether it is useable
or not it confirmed the extension given. We have argued for a long
time on a question that contains the word equilibrium rather than
focussing on that which is now revealed. Now along comes this "chris"
who unlike Dr Davis declares he doesn't understand the question( not
equilibrium), tho he has been prolific in advice and insults. So
there has been absolutely no closure on the question thus giving rise
to insults.which all can supply with ease. The question is still
there and does not have academic closure!