On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:29:59 -0400, wrote:


It would seem that if we are allowed to posit, for the purposes
of discussion, the existence of ideal transmission lines, we should
also be allowed to posit the existence of ideal observation tools.


Hi Keith,

All fine and well, but you have simply "defined" your own solution.
You haven't explored it, explained it, or learned from it. Saying "it
is thus" is meaningless. It's like Cecil's logic of zero power
arising from the combination of all possible powers. "A gazzillion
watts facing -gazzillion watts is zero watts - how can you deny a
gazzillion watts?"

You may allow yourself these ideal tools, but you have wholly
neglected their description, method, and application. The same
solutions exist in reality, they are simply rough around the edges.
Knowing the scope of error in context let's us judge for ourselves how
significant the argument is. As I pointed out, there are a number of
metaphors available to do this, and they still go wanting.

This so-called "ideal" is an illusion. I've measured physical
constants out so many decimal places that the random noise of the big
bang limited its accuracy, and yet there were still more places to
report if anyone wished hard enough to believed in it. Perfection
allows for error too.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC