Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You furnished less than none.

Short memory in long supply. The complete treatment in math was
offered successfully rebutting your proposition and you have shown
nothing new. The negation stands.

There is zero net refraction, given by definition. So all your
refraction math was irrelevant and negated nothing. All that
exists in the example is forward energy and reflected energy
which you chose not to deal with at all.

The reason that optical engineers know so much more about power
and energy in EM waves is because that's about all they could
measure for 100 years. They don't have the luxury of measuring
the voltage in an EM light wave. And using voltage to analyze
photonic EM energy waves doesn't reveal the whole story.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----