Art Unwin wrote:

No you have not!

Temper, temper little boy.

Every thing comes back to the initial finding that
by adding a time varying current to the arbitrary border of Gauss
which surrounds
a field of static particles provides the same conditions implied by
Maxwell's equations.

Made up physics again. Unproven by any math or demonstrable effects.
Try a new line of argument, this one gets you nowhere.

The group denies this fact possibly because the word equilibrium was
not of their understanding. Without understanding the connection
between Maxwell and Gauss
with respect to the addition of time makes to a static field ala a
dynamic field, it is impossible to procede with respect to radiation.
If one starts from the middle of the story where coupling of waves is
considered a basic physics understanding the debate leads no where.

Denied by the group because it contradicts everything that is proven to
work, as well as all published and mathematically backed theories.

And provide some proof. Even just a little. Rhetoric doesn't count.

You accuse others of sitting on their asses and not building antennas
and measuring them, when you have never once done it yourself.

I have built many antennas and provided many independent performance
measurements right here. And so has almost evreyone you argue with. We
all make things and MEASURE them. You don't.

Now I am not asking people to follow solely the path of mathematics
but of the concepts involved where the presence of particles is
present., To start from a small portion of the current flow and
thinking in terms of DC or the suggestion that time varying fields
cannot surround a static field is just ludicrous. The subject is
Classical Physics and one should keep on subject if one is to fully
understand radiation. Denial of select parts of classical physics
without supplying reason ans substituting insults instead is not going
to solve anything. And as you did not graduate from high school it is
perfectly understandable that you will find difficulties in parts of
the debate and yet you would like to contribute to the debate. But
insults will not get the job done.
Of course one can go back to the basics of mathematics way back in
Arabic times where
the mere presence of an equal sign denotes equilibrium or balance. The
equal sign is part of Maxwells equations so equilibrium is in effect.
This immediatly tells you that any radiator considered must be a
function of a full wavelength or a period with respect to a continuing
variable sign wave. Immediately one should note that a half wave has
no place in our calculations as the two areas under curve for a period
can never be the same because of overshoot phenomina, thus it is the
period that is repeatable and to be used. One can also deduce that a
radiator must be in equilibrium to be part of the same reasoning thus
resonance on its own is not part of the mathematics. There are plenty
of ways to see how current thinking on antennas is certainly not
inline with the equations of Maxwell, thus it is very important to
start from "first "principles and not just accept the books. And that
the importance of adding time to a static field enclosed by an
arbitrary boundary to ensure the correct metrics will be used at the
outset.

Uh Art? There are no rational concepts in your presentation, please
provide some.

And there's no "math" at all in your mathematical presentations, just a
bunch of bafflegab. Please provide math.

Oh, I forgot, you can't. All you can do is babble. And accuse people
of foolishness in their disbelief.

I must say, you are entertaining when you don't take your medications.

And you still can't spell or put together a sentence. I would suggest a
spell checker at the very least.

tom
K0TAR