What blows my mind John there is nobody willing to do the math with
respect to my extension of GAUSS
It blows my mind when a ham with a doctorate comes along and supplies
the mathematical proof and the math is denied
by the guru's on this newsgroup.

Art, the following should address your concerns with respect
to Gauss's law.

I maintain the web site for the "Night Train Express" net on
75 m, and have added a page to this web site
concerning Gauss etc. There are two pages copied from
a text book. Note that the third of Maxwell's equation is
Gauss's Law.

Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

73,

Frank

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:26:27 GMT, "Frank" wrote:

Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. ... maybe the 7th or 8th page then.
42nd page?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. ... maybe the 7th or 8th page then.
42nd page?

No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages.

73,
Frank, VE6CB

"Frank" wrote in message
news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83...
Link at: http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. ... maybe the 7th or 8th page then.
42nd page?

No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages.

73,
Frank, VE6CB

To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:
http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm

Frank

On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote:
"Frank" wrote in message

news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83...

Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then..
42nd page?

No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages.

73,
Frank, VE6CB

To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm

Frank

What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and
time again we get a quote from books
by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of
context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply
these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally
missed it.
Many thanks for the postings and efforts
Regards
Art

On Nov 7, 7:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote:



"Frank" wrote in message

news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83...

Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then.
42nd page?

No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages.

73,
Frank, VE6CB

To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm

Frank

What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and
time again we get a quote from books
by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of
context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply
these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally
missed it.
Many thanks for the postings and efforts
Regards
Art

Oooops I have just noticed the book reference. As far as what is
printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking
which is why you brought it forward but you did not say that. Maybe
somebody with mathematical knoweledge will come forward to show how it
disproves what I say
but I doubt that, most will revert to the talking head stance.
Any way Frank I like how things are printed so I will try the library
to see if they have a copy. I was particularly interested in the slow
wave comment as that was also derided on this newsgroup.
Best regards
Art

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:12:27 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

As far as what is
printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking

That you invented a time component to Gauss' equations and Maxwell
didn't? Fishing for validation or for Moby Dick? At least Ahab
nailed a gold dollar to the mast for the first one to spot the great
white whale.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Nov 7, 8:12*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Nov 7, 3:59*pm, "Frank" wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message

news:hwjQk.677$xJ3.560@edtnps83...

Link at:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm
Click on "Next" for the 2nd page of math showing the development
of the wave equation.

Are you suppressing a 3rd page of math showing equal librium? *It must
be there according to Art's revisionist discovery of Newton's laws for
the Unified Theory of RF Fields. *... maybe the 7th or 8th page then.
42nd page?

No, Sorry Richard. Nothing about "Equal librium" in 1200 pages.

73,
Frank, VE6CB

To clarify the math, I have added some relevant pages to:http://www3.telus.net/nighttrainexpress/maxwell_1.htm

Frank

What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from? Time and
time again we get a quote from books
by some members of this group where it is then used totally out of
context. As an aside I am not quite sure what your intent is to supply
these formula. If it is to substantiate a point then I have totally
missed it.
Many thanks for the postings and efforts
Regards
Art

Oooops I have just noticed the book reference. As far as what is
printed I would like to hear somebody say that it confirms my thinking
which is why you brought it forward but you did not say that. Maybe
somebody with mathematical knoweledge will come forward to show how it
disproves what I say
but I doubt that, most will revert to the talking head stance.
Any way Frank I like how things are printed so I will try the library
to see if they have a copy. I was particularly interested in the slow
wave comment as that was also derided on this newsgroup.
Best regards
Art

Frank
What you have done is to bring to the fore front modern thinking in
science that has emerged since
the thinking of Jackson and Termin and become nmore in line with
Einstein and particle theory.
It without doubt confirms the thinking of the Grand universal theory
by the inclusion of Staic law
tho without the conclusive proof that Gauss;s static law provides but
even so arrives at a common conclusion.
It plkeases me very much that it is now used in college education so
that the present generation will not bemind bound
by the past. I was especially pleased with the reference to "slow
wave" which is a very importabt component to Maxwells laws
that has been ommited in the past. Regardles that the author did not
reference specifically the statics law he is very implicite
with respect to the commonality of statics with with respect with
electro magnetics which I thank you very much for bringing it to the
attention of others.
This follows your effots in showing that NEC computor programs do
indeed support the idea of arrays in equilibrium when you provided a
computor analysis showing radiators that were resonant and at
different angles to each other because of the addfition of the angle
requirement of the weak force.
You are to be commended for studying the statements for yourself to
confirm their veracity instead of the attitude of the talking heads.,
I look forward to your future posts
Very best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG

Art wrote:
"Frank, What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from?"

Read the posting!

"Engineering Eleactromagnetics, 2nd edition", Nathan Ida, ISBN
0-387-20156-4."

My unsolicited comment: Lyndon Johnson once described someneone like you
approximately as: "He couldn`t pour beer out of a boot if instructions
were stamped on the heel."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Nov 8, 10:14*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Frank, What is the name of the actual book you are quoting from?"

Read the posting!

"Engineering Eleactromagnetics, 2nd edition", Nathan Ida, ISBN
0-387-20156-4."

My unsolicited comment: Lyndon Johnson once described someneone like you
approximately as: "He couldn`t pour beer out of a boot if instructions
were stamped on the heel."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Hopefully you now feel better after throwing that stone