"tom" wrote in message
. net...
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

I know, but its fun asking the one pertinent question that he can't answer.
he keeps saying i reject his addition of the (t) term to Gauss' Law, and
won't accept the answer that it is redundant since the law is not dependent
on time, it is true for all time. So the (t) is not necessary at best and
misleading at worst... you can put it there, but it doesn't mean anything...
its kind of like saying f(t)=f(t), a simple truism.