Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
There is zero net refraction, given by definition. So all your
refraction math was irrelevant and negated nothing.

The math remains inviolate, exhibits the laws of conservation, and
negate your premise. So far you have added nothing to offset this.

Most of the reflection examples in _Optics_, by Hecht, assume
zero net refraction and I will continue to follow Hecht's lead.
(Complicating examples beyond what is needed for understanding
the principles involved is a form of obfuscation.)
--
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 =----