On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:57:18 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
Was this thanks for his misreading Gauss where it should have been
Maxwell?

I do not understand your comment. If you go back and look at my first
post on this subject (Message-ID ),
you will see that I equated Gauss's law with the first Maxwell equation.

Gauss's law is commonly stated as:

The electric flux through a closed surface is proportional to the
amount of charge enclosed by the surface.

As I wrote before, this also happens to be the integral form of the
first Maxwell equation:

div E(x,t) = 4\pi\rho(x,t)

While Gauss may have stated this law in terms of static charges, and
it finds most applications in the static case, the law also holds for
the dynamic case. This is why physicists equate Gauss's law with the
integral form of the first Maxwell equation. And as evidence of this
association, you indirectly pointed out in Message-ID
that Feynman equated the
two in the table 15-1 of volume II of his lectures.

--John