Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:


Jim Kelley wrote:

Roy is absolutely right, Cecil. Interact is a very poor choice of
terms in this discussion.


Roy did NOT say "interact" was a poor choice of terms.


That's correct. I said that interact is a poor choice of terms.


But you implied that is what Roy said just above.

I observed that Roy is absolutely right, and, that 'interact' is a
very poor choice of terms in this discussion. I said it because waves
do not, according to the definition of the word, 'act upon one
another'. That of course does not mean there isn't a net effect when
they superpose. It simply means that waves do not effect other waves.
At this point I really don't expect you to understand that.

chose to use it as did Hecht. Hecht says waves interact.
Roy says they don't interact.


As I said, Roy is correct.


Roy is right and Hecht is wrong???

If Hecht actually weighed in on the subject, he would agree with Roy.
His use of the term caused you to infer something that he, I assure
you, did not intend to imply.

And the funny thing is, you say that even you know of instances in
which the net fields are zero, and yet the waves propagate beyond that
point.

Where do the reflected waves go that propagate beyond that
point and are measured as zero amplitude by a Bird wattmeter?

Take a look at the interference pattern created in space by two,
separated, coherent, point sources of light. The light waves
propagating from each point sources have absolutely no effect on each
other as they pass through one another, alternately interfering
destructively and constructively as they continue to propagate totally
unaffected by the process. It doesn't matter which direction they're
traveling; in no instance do waves destroy or act upon other waves,
totally or partially. The result of their superposition may differ
from one case to the next, but the phenomenon itself does not. But
again, at this point I don't expect you to understand this.

Dr. Best said those zero energy canceled waves propagate right
into the source.

He might have a point. But since cancelled waves convey no energy, it
doesn't really matter one way or the other, as others here have noted.

Are
you making that same stupid assertion?

All I'm trying to do is point out when you make a stupid assertion.

I think you just like to argue.


No, I honestly think we would pinpoint our differences. But,
of course, you would never agree to such.

I've already made the differences as clear as I possibly can in every
way I can think of, Cecil. That is why at this point I really don't
expect you to understand. You could, but I think it's pretty apparent
that you have too much invested in your personal theories.

73, Jim AC6XG