Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 30, 9:35*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". *If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to. I always thought Art had confused statics with statistics. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to. come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to. come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on! |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to. come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on! come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". or are you going to pull another vanishing act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab? |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to. come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on! come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". or are you going to pull another vanishing act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab? thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much more nonsense. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 1, 6:09*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message .. . "Dave" wrote in message .. . "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". *If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to.. come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics".. can't answer a specific simple question art?? *you much prefer to handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. *without that answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. *give us this magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on! come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". *or are you going to pull another vanishing act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab? thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much more nonsense. David I am not ignoring you. I have responded to lots and lots of your questions but you do not respond in kind. It started years ago with a time varying current being applied to Gass's law of Statics and you have rebelled to everything said since then, and not once have you explained the definitive reasons as to why you reject all. As I have said many times, I do not work for you. I am not in your employ. As for Maxwell's equations, he accounted for all the forces involved in the generation of radiation within the boundary of equilibrium. A Yagi is not in equilibrium so the difference is chalk and cheese. Both radiate ofcourse tho the sizes do differ as does the bandwidth as well as the TOA but the point I am making is that if your radiation assembly is not in equilibrium you are not following the tenents of Maxwell. A very simple distinction as is the accelleration of the charge contained by a departing particle compared to a wave of some sort or energy content that is capable of a straight line projection without interference from gravitational forces or progressions to the existance of light, X rays, e.t.c. Have a very happy day and sleep tight and don't get your knickers in a twist Regards Art |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:09 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Gauss's law of Statics is the subject law. Ok, you capitalize that as if it were a specific law... provide a reference, other than your own posts, for "Gauss's law of Statics". If you can't do that, provide the specific equation you are refering to. come on art, cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". can't answer a specific simple question art?? you much prefer to handwave and berate others, i ask a simple direct question that is at the core of all your ranting and you can't even answer it. without that answer the rest of your posts are just empty shells. give us this magical "Gauss's law of Statics" that you base everything on! come on art, one specific simple question...cite the specific reference for "Gauss's law of Statics". or are you going to pull another vanishing act and come back later just to start fresh with more bafflegab? thats right art, keep ignoring me... you can't answer the central question that all your theory is built on, so that makes the rest of it just so much more nonsense. David I am not ignoring you. I have responded to lots and lots of your Yes he is, and no he can't answer the question. snip more of the normal nonsense Have a very happy day and sleep tight and don't get your knickers in a twist Regards Art With total disregard tom K0TAR |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
spots | Antenna | |||
Sun Spots | Shortwave | |||
Sun Spots During an Ice Age? | Antenna | |||
Waiting for 'spots... | CB |