On 28 Jun, 16:04, John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...

He may not know crap about antennas but I think he may be the greatest troll
artist of all times.
Jimmie

Without doubt, the first antenna "was" before the theory/math was
invented to define it ...

Without a doubt, this WILL occur again, and if it already has, only if
you do the construction will you know. The math/models have been
defined within too narrow of parameters, indeed, it is easy to prove
some of this math is based on sheer fallacy. The
permeability/permittivity of "nothing" being involved demonstrates, at
the very least, some things need redefining!

nothing = 0 permeability = 0 permittivity; end of story.

Now, let's find the real math ...

JS

John, What is so interesting about all this is
the arrival of that paper from the Russian scientist who is now head
of the Russian nuclear industry where his delving into the history
of Gauss showed that Gauss's assistant was responsible for taking some
of Gauss's work and thus hiding(we will never know) any
information that may have passed on to him before Gauss died.
There is a gap of knoweledge here because Gauss gave up mathematics
and took up with the Italian Observatory thinking a living
could not be made via mathematics! The progression that I am
describing
may well be a casualty of that descision but now the information
is to be revealed . If the information was known and made available
to science at that time one could easily see Gaussian law providing
the underpinnings of Maxwellian laws instead of being held to laws
of others where the connection to statics was tenuous at best.
Readers can find the Russian paper listed in the "Gaussian antenna
planar form" thread of a few days ago on this newsgroup to get hold
of the history of this mystery of a few hundred years ago to
form their own detective story of yesteryear.
Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG