| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
September 25th 07, 12:05 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
|
|||
|
|||
Maxwells laws
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Another act of Republican "these laws are for everyone but us": | Shortwave | |||
| SCANNER EAVESDROPPING LAWS | Swap | |||
| Scanning laws around the world? | Scanner | |||
| Scanner Laws | Scanner | |||
Hybrid Mode
