Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
I understand them perfectly. You may recall that I introduced you to
the Melles-Griot site. You on the other hand, misunderstand them.


When you introduced me to the Melles-Groit web page, you told
me what it said and I still think you were right. You were happy
for me because you had found something to support my concepts. After
a few days, you changed your mind and informed me that it didn't
say what you first thought it said. Maybe you should question what
caused your mind to change?

I know intimately well what caused me to change my mind. It doesn't
make sense! It's insupportable by the underlying physics. I work in
the field; I've asked E&M people about it. I didn't make up an
explanation for this - YOU DID! Then you looked around to see if it was
true. And you want to think that Melles-Griot confirms it. But it
doesn't.

Quite often, the first conclusion is the
correct one. So does it say what it says, or not?

My second conclusion enjoyed the benefit of actually working through the
problem. That's certainly not true in your case.

Interference is an effect not a cause.


Interference is not an end effect.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are making a fool of
yourself. Since you don't believe me, try to get Melles-Griot or Eugene
Hecht to confirm your theory that interference causes waves to reflect.
Good luck with that OM.

ac6xg