View Single Post
  #18   Report Post  
Old March 1st 10, 06:32 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Art Unwin Art Unwin is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,339
Default A static field made dynamic to make Maxwell applicable

On Mar 1, 12:02*pm, Bill wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:39*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the

primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.


And so on...


xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding


Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?


It is not unusual for those involved in physics to see engineers as
trash.
But physicist have relied so much on mathematics to the point of
covering up errors
that it is now really the science of plagarism.I don't know what your
achievement in life are
but it would appear you are talking as a physicist possibly with a
phd. Earlier we had a phd from MIT post that the error I allude to
is indeed an error which occured when the cgs system was replaced I
therefore suggest that you and others should scan the web with respect
to errors made in physics and how they have been covered up. I suggest
you start with the errors of Maxwell and follow thru to see how these
errors have been magnified via plagarism. I am an engineer and not a
physicist such as you which puts me in the position of being able to
check mathematics and discern mathematical errors. I gave you a paper
that echoes the mathematical errors that I pointed out in a much more
readable and scientific fashion. So with the extensive knoweledge you
seem to suggest you have why not critique the math presented in the
article and show to others from a physics standpoint the paper is in
error? This would be so much informative in sending a string of posts
to defame me which is an example of free speech since it has no
scientific analysis to prove your point. This is why I do not respond
to you since you provide no facts of interest only spam as with a few
others on this newsgroup. If indeed you do have a doctorate in the
subject or some notable achievement in this area you will have my
attention but at the moment the only evidence i see is one of spam.