Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in the
existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the equations that
make your law different than his. if you can't do that, its no better than
a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a paper, get it
published and show the rest of the world that uses those equations and gets
perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage
to make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.

On Sep 23, 6:10 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...

Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.

I'd ignore him. The moron can't even read properly...
I see no text written where you tell Art to shut up, or even write at
a lighter
shade of print for that matter..
I think "John Smith", or "Bret", or whoever the heck he really is,
would prefer
that Art brainwash all the unsuspecting readers into thinking what he
writes
is true fact without question. Who cares if it's total BS or not, it's
new!
"John Smith" doesn't care if it's all BS or not, just as long as it's
some
new theory that seems to contradict old established theory.
He has shown repeated disdain for proven established theory.
He thinks that being most that wrote it are either dead, or in an
advanced
age state, that obviously it can't fit in with the "New World Order"
of
code toads that dabble with antennas on occasion.
After all, most lived decades ago. What could they possibly know
compared to a code toad that is living in the early part of the 21st
century?

I envision him as the type that probably believes most of what he
hears on
Coast to Coast AM..

Did I mention that he's a prime time smartass?
Probably not needed, being you got a taste first hand.
Don't worry about looking like an idiot. Anyone with half a brain can
see where that dubious honor really belongs..
It might have to be shared by two people though... :/
But at least Art is not really a smartass. I'll give him that.. He's
just
confused... I have much less problem with that, than I do a smartass.
Art is confusing the minds of new or unsuspecting readers with all
his "theory" though. Thats why he gets so much flak.
Some of his stuff makes the "EH" antenna guy actually look sane
by comparison.. And thats kinda scary... :/
MK

wrote:

I'd ignore him. The moron can't even read properly...
I see no text written where you tell Art to shut up, or even write at
a lighter
shade of print for that matter..
I think "John Smith", or "Bret", or whoever the heck he really is,
would prefer
that Art brainwash all the unsuspecting readers into thinking what he
writes
is true fact without question. Who cares if it's total BS or not, it's
new!
"John Smith" doesn't care if it's all BS or not, just as long as it's
some
new theory that seems to contradict old established theory.
He has shown repeated disdain for proven established theory.
He thinks that being most that wrote it are either dead, or in an
advanced
age state, that obviously it can't fit in with the "New World Order"
of
code toads that dabble with antennas on occasion.
After all, most lived decades ago. What could they possibly know
compared to a code toad that is living in the early part of the 21st
century?

I envision him as the type that probably believes most of what he
hears on
Coast to Coast AM..

Did I mention that he's a prime time smartass?
Probably not needed, being you got a taste first hand.
Don't worry about looking like an idiot. Anyone with half a brain can
see where that dubious honor really belongs..
It might have to be shared by two people though... :/
But at least Art is not really a smartass. I'll give him that.. He's
just
confused... I have much less problem with that, than I do a smartass.
Art is confusing the minds of new or unsuspecting readers with all
his "theory" though. Thats why he gets so much flak.
Some of his stuff makes the "EH" antenna guy actually look sane
by comparison.. And thats kinda scary... :/
MK


Idiots never cease to amaze me--and OMG, there is a NEVER ENDING SUPPLY!

PLONK

JS

On 23 Sep, 16:10, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...



Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull. A ham who holds a doctorate and works for MIT provided the
corroberating details.
It is not my fault that your mathematical knoweledge and education
could not keep up with him which is the same for all others on the
thread. Nobody but nobody could fault his mathematics and you call
that just "hand waving"?
David it was you who led the charge and consistently stated that you
can't apply a time varient to a static field and refused to
acknowledge that the math supplied that concurred with Maxwells laws
relying only on the fact that it came from your own mouth so it must
be correct. Now that I call "handwaving" all mouth and no facts
proffered to confirm your opinions or guesstimates. Now you say you
should be able to take a "challenge" well I invite any scientifically
based challenge some thing I have hoped for in a long while from the
self professeed experts and am still waiting.
I can understand opinions from hobbiests you have joined the ranks of
ham radio but for those skilled in the art and have gone thru the
reqimen of getting a degree or obtaining the rights of a professional
engineer one would expect a more factual debate on the subject. If you
don't understand the subject then you default your right to critisize.
Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.
Have a happy day to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ......ex UK.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:45:00 -0700, art wrote:

Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.

Seems to have worked ;-)

Oh, by the way, it is a degree in English (you know, the country you
hate - now THATS geography).

By the by, I see you still lean on MIT who left here misquoting
Feynman and having mixed up his math (at least you both can have a
reunion when your next anniversary comes up).

Can I anticipate another sob story about how wicked we are here? (Boy,
those "gentlemen of eham" sure stomped your ego.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 23 Sep, 16:10, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...



Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do
that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write
a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage
to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite
obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when
you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown
himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in
terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull. A ham who holds a doctorate and works for MIT provided the
corroberating details.
It is not my fault that your mathematical knoweledge and education
could not keep up with him which is the same for all others on the
thread. Nobody but nobody could fault his mathematics and you call
that just "hand waving"?
David it was you who led the charge and consistently stated that you
can't apply a time varient to a static field and refused to
acknowledge that the math supplied that concurred with Maxwells laws
relying only on the fact that it came from your own mouth so it must
be correct. Now that I call "handwaving" all mouth and no facts
proffered to confirm your opinions or guesstimates. Now you say you
should be able to take a "challenge" well I invite any scientifically
based challenge some thing I have hoped for in a long while from the
self professeed experts and am still waiting.
I can understand opinions from hobbiests you have joined the ranks of
ham radio but for those skilled in the art and have gone thru the
reqimen of getting a degree or obtaining the rights of a professional
engineer one would expect a more factual debate on the subject. If you
don't understand the subject then you default your right to critisize.
Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.
Have a happy day to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ......ex UK.


ah well art... i guess i have riled you up enough this time, its not any fun
any more though. you don't have anything new to offer, just pointing to old
discreditted information and posts that don't exist. I have quoted enough
of my credentials that by now you should know i can follow whatever math you
may throw up, or puke up as the case may be, on this forum. and i'm not
going to bother to go search for your mythical patents and papers any more,
publish the full links here or forever be labeled a faker.

On 24 Sep, 13:23, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 23 Sep, 16:10, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...

Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do
that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write
a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage
to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite
obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when
you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown
himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in
terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull. A ham who holds a doctorate and works for MIT provided the
corroberating details.
It is not my fault that your mathematical knoweledge and education
could not keep up with him which is the same for all others on the
thread. Nobody but nobody could fault his mathematics and you call
that just "hand waving"?
David it was you who led the charge and consistently stated that you
can't apply a time varient to a static field and refused to
acknowledge that the math supplied that concurred with Maxwells laws
relying only on the fact that it came from your own mouth so it must
be correct. Now that I call "handwaving" all mouth and no facts
proffered to confirm your opinions or guesstimates. Now you say you
should be able to take a "challenge" well I invite any scientifically
based challenge some thing I have hoped for in a long while from the
self professeed experts and am still waiting.
I can understand opinions from hobbiests you have joined the ranks of
ham radio but for those skilled in the art and have gone thru the
reqimen of getting a degree or obtaining the rights of a professional
engineer one would expect a more factual debate on the subject. If you
don't understand the subject then you default your right to critisize.
Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.
Have a happy day to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ......ex UK.

ah well art... i guess i have riled you up enough this time, its not any fun
any more though. you don't have anything new to offer, just pointing to old
discreditted information and posts that don't exist. I have quoted enough
of my credentials that by now you should know i can follow whatever math you
may throw up, or puke up as the case may be, on this forum. and i'm not
going to bother to go search for your mythical patents and papers any more,
publish the full links here or forever be labeled a faker.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I porefer the faker one