Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I said it because waves do not, according to the definition of the
word, 'act upon one another'.


But they can act upon one another, Jim. The Florida State web
page says so. The Melles-Groit web page says so.

No they don't. If the waves themselves changed, then their resultant
superposition would also change. It's a completely unfounded notion,
Cecil.

It says their
energy components are redistributed.

Which is not the same as saying waves have an effect on other waves.
I said I didn't expect you to understand, and clearly you don't.

How can their energy
components be redistributed if they have no effect on each
other?

I don't know what exactly an "energy component" is, but I would assert
that it would be redistributed in the same way completely
independently of however you or I might happen to feel about it.

His use of the term caused you to infer something that he, I assure
you, did not intend to imply.

Your assurance and three bucks will get me a cup of Starbucks.

Not to mention a more realistic viewpoint.

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.


Yes, because they are not collinear. If they don't intersect,
they also don't interfere. You can find billions of cases where
they don't interfere. That doesn't mean they don't ever interfere.

As I said, I don't expect you to understand, and clearly here you don't.

Just as illustrated on the Florida State web page, when coherent
waves are also collinear, as they are in a transmission line, they
merge into the total wave and cease to exist as separate wave
components.

Yes, it very effectively shows how 1 + -1 = 0. Very profound, Cecil.

ac6xg