On Sep 15, 12:42*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:15:04 -0700 (PDT), jaroslav lipka

wrote:
The question that goes to nub of Arts claim is
why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics
illegal?

Maxwell did exactly that and called it Gauss' Law (Gauss did not do it
in his law that he did not call Gauss' Law). *History came along and
uses the same name for two laws. *Maxwell acknowledged Gauss'
contribution for statics and applied time to them to arrive at
dynamics (and honored Gauss by naming his dynamics Gauss' Law). *So
History and Maxwell have long observed TWO Gauss' laws - each
distinctive as the first being static, the second dynamic.

Art has never gotten past this historical hiccup.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At last, at last. Richard has turned around after giving a drubbing to
Dr Davis and now
comes around to stamp the extension as legal. In fact he states it was
always like that!
Now will the group as a whole follow his lead and do a spin in
thinking? You can, you can
add an extension of a time varying field to a static field to turn it
into a dynamic field.
I will leave the group to turn to Richard and question his present
motives and advise him to reverse his new posture
OLAY OLAY Dead men walking