"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 11:30 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:35 pm, Registered User wrote:



On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until
a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and
strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of
effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law
of statics illegal ?
Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field
into a dynamic field?
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal. Until then......

The easiest way to support your hypothesis is to show a plot or data
table showing how time effects a static field. Frankly I don't know
how you could show any relevant data since the word STATIC means
"unchanging over time" . Applying a time variable to something that is
static is pointless.
Time is relevant to DYNAMIC fields but someone else has already taken
care of that for us.

Jimmie


I've noted, further down the thread, that the term 'electrostatic' is used
in electromagnetics to distinguish between phenomena that depend on the
presence of a quantity of charge (e.g. electric field strength) and
phenomena that depend on the rate of movement of charge (e.g. magnetic field
strength). Perhaps the 'static' part of the word is a misnomer when the
whole system is alternating at a radio frequency, but it is used widely in
the literature. For example, if you look up the components of electric
field around a dipole you'll find close-in reactive components that are
often referred to as 'electrostatic'.

As always: if in doubt, read Kraus.

Chris