[Dave[_22_]]

On Jan 10, 1:22*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jan 9, 3:46*pm, Dave wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

and the other approaches offered are not accepted by you for
unspecified reasons.

i have been very specific about why they are not acceptable, there are
no specific equations that relate to something measurable, nor have
you made any predictions of things that aren't already well described
by existing laws and theories.

David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations.

maxwell's equations know nothing of the length of a conductor used as
a radiator. in fact, they say nothing about a conductor at all.
where in the equations is there even a length specified?? in the
differential form everything is reduced to either a gradient or curl,
there can of course be no length since everything is reduced to an
instant in time or a single point in space. in the integral form they
are done over volumes, over surfaces, or around closed loops, all with
arbitrary boundaries. And in none of them is there a conductivity or
resistivity term applied that would be necessary to model a conductive
element.

you might also be interested in this paragraph from Ramo, Whinnery,
and Van Duzer's "Fields and Waves in Communicaiton Electronics" pg 237
section 4.07 that puts your insistence on adding a 't' to Gauss's law
in perspective:

"Equation (1) is seen to be the familiar form off Gauss's law utilized
so much in chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are
a function of time, the interpretation is that the electric flux
flowing out of any closed surface AT A GIVEN INSTANT is equal to the
charge enclosed by that surface AT THAT INSTANT."

Emphasis is THEIRS not mine, they were obviously anticipating your
objection and explaining why it isn't necessary to add a 't' to the
equation. I would put the 3 of them against your dr friend any day of
the week.