On Jan 3, 5:57*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

I bought that book because you refered to it some time ago where you
misrepresented
what you alluded to and now you are doing it again.

misrepresented??? *its right in the book, compare those two formula, are
they not the same? *is not guass's law, which is a time invarient equation
directly in maxwell's equations??

In your method of
reading did the law that a radiator can be any shape, size or
elevation as long as it is in equilibrium?

if you can find where 'equilibrium' is a required condition in maxwell's
equations, give me the reference in the book. *otherwise you are out of
equilibrium.

I can't conceive that a
mathematition of Maxwells staturer could have missed that observation
if as you say he extended gaussian law of statics. Perhaps you have an
answer for that also of the back of your head.

sure, he didn't 'extend' it... he used it verbatum as the book shows. *there
is no need to 'extend' it, its a perfectly good law as it is stated and has
been for many years.

our positions continue to be absurd from an engineering point of view
and nobody as yet has confirmed your position and what is really wierd
none have denied

because they are enjoying laughing at your absurd positions as much as i am!

Oh My Do you really believe that you are talking on behalf of the
masses?
When Dr Davis of M.I.T. said contrary to the thinking of this group
that Gauss's law of statics
when extended, as I stated, is mathematically the equal to Maxwells
laws as per Maxwells correction.
Many a post has been written since that day castigating the very idea
of equivalence to Maxwell,w
even questioning the propriety of the mathematics. So far nobody has
concurred with Dr Davis
with respect to the math that he presented. You David stated that the
mathematical stance taken was illegal
because there is no connection with respect to statics ! David you
have no credability as anyone who owns a copy of that book can easily
confirm for themselves..Just look at what you now have stated that you
have found the connection
( tho I doubt it) with respect to Statics. Ofcourse if somebody wants
to debate your statement on your behalf I will be happy to refute what
you say page by page. Until then the book stays on the shelf because
of past experiences with your statements.
In Maxwells time he was given credit for what appeared as proof of the
wave theory even to the point of extrapolating same to light
because of the "c" property in his correction which he obtained by
ensuring compliance to Newtons law with respect to equilibrium.
It was decades before Foucalt came along with his discovery of a field
that matched the Maxwell correction where prior to there was none. Now
we can debunk the wave theory as the particle is now in stone
Art Unwin KB9MZ......xg (uk)