Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I am only concerned with some of the concepts that you describe.


When you repeat those concepts back to me, they bear
no resemblance to the concepts that I am trying to
describe.

To you, they may not. But those concepts remain just as ludicrous no
matter who describes them. :-)

That is proof that our disagreements are
semantic. (The only other possibility is that you
are unethical and are deliberately bearing false
witness against me.)

The obvious possibility being dismissed out of hand is the one where
you are wrong and someone else is right.

I use words to describe my concepts. You and I do not
agree on the definitions of those words.

Yes. Others also use words, and there are cases where your
understanding of the meaning of the words is not necessarily the same
as the meaning intended by the author. We know this by comparing the
things you say about physics with fundamental principles of physics.

It is simply that we are
using different definitions of the word "transfer".

If that is the case then I am using the definition pertinent to the
physics of our discussion, and you are using whichever one you think
will prevent your argument from containing a false statement.

You and I might as well be trying to communicate in two
foreign languages that neither one of us understand.

But only if it suits the purposes of internet one-upsmanship,
apparently.

73, ac6xg