On Sat, 29 May 2010 22:59:49 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Hi to all...

Richard, do you agree with Walter's theory on "Another look at
reflections" in reflections topic -out of plate resistance
differences-?

Hi Miguel,

Walt is not espousing a theory.

The word you are trying to find is "validity,"

No, it was more near of your second = "Truth", or "The Truth", the
metaphysical "truth" :)

Then this will be great sport.
(sport: from Old French desport , pleasure ,
from desporter , to divert
- I assume it is not very different
from the Spanish desportes)

Walt and I disagree about Plate resistance being "real"

What is "real" for you?

Children.

For me it is a slippery word ever ready to
disputes, in knowledge matters makes us think of the "thing itself"
and with it, we quickly fall into endless scholastic discussions. With
models "the thing" it is a little more ease, models only must be
internal and measurements consistent. Models are neither "True" nor
"Real", they are modestly "valid" :) What do you think?

They have what is called "internal consistency."
.......
I believe I am in a privileged position because my english weakness :

I have designed natural language parsers (NLP). Non-native speakers
of English know the language far better than native born speakers.

That is your privilege.

when I am about to disagree with you, I tell me -"probably you do not
translate well, Miguel, ask again"- and when you answer to me then
voilá! I do not disagree... Viceversa, perhaps language give me a
second chance with you because you are more forgiving with me :)

I have lived in more countries and spoken more languages than most
here. There are many here that speak and write perfectly poor English
that makes better sense that some of the strange statements you are
trying to parse.

Example:
Miguel =
I do not quite understand this = "Photons cannot stand still in a
standing wave." -You do not ascribe to wave-particle duality notion?-
Cecil =
Some of the RF gurus will try to convince you that the energy in RF
standing waves is standing still. But since those RF waves consist of
photons which must necessarily move at the speed of light in the
medium,

So, now I believe what he is trying to tell me is stationary wave is a
measured time dependent magnitude resulting of two near speed of light
traveling waves, manifestating in our measurement apparatus (observer
or "load" as said Richard)... It is good to me.. Then, I do not care
anymore the ugly (nasty?) word "photon" :), and finally to my joy,
next Cecil sentence confirms my translation/interpretation!.

Coherent waves flowing in the same direction in a transmission line
suffer permanent interaction.

It is difficult to me reconcile superposition principle with
"interaction", because in spanish "interacción" word means: "Action
exerted MUTUALLY between two or more objects, agents, forces,
functions, etc" (capitals are mine) And I learnt two or more
electromagnetic waves can pass one through other by same point of the
SPACE without recognizing themselves (unlike particles that
"collide"), then, by definition, they not interactuate themselves at
all.

You have the second privilege of understanding a confused statement
when you see it. This is language independent.

We do not "see" any standing wave in space when two same path opposite
direction RF rays cross themselves and there is not contradiction. Are
you agree?

To see is to witness, or be an observer (from the Latin observare, ob-
over, -servare watch). When two light waves illuminate the same load,
and the load is observable, you see the combination of two energies at
that load.

A standing wave does not exist until you measure the combination of
the contributions at a point. You can, of course, populate a large
area with many point-loads if you wish to map a region. Under very
controlled circumstances, you will get to see a nice pattern.

The sport is found he Of course, you could see the same pattern at
the same points by the projection of an image upon them from one
source.

Could you tell the difference between (1) that single source projected
image and (2) the standing wave combination of several sources?

This is too much fun already, but.....

So, for Truth: Is a movie projector acted upon by the movie it
projects? Was your camera happy because your photograph shows a
smile? The Truth would say yes. What would Schrodinger see?

Does that help?

In transmission lines instead it is not easy to think that because
more "tangible" standing wave voltages and currents make us think they
are "interacting". What do you think about it?,

A confused statement.

but wave cancellation accompanied by destructive interference can
also redirect EM energy

To satisfy the energy conservation principle, isn' it? This produces a
reflection, right?

You are in the bushes.

but when classic physics allegedly doesn't obey the laws of
quantum electrodynamics, something is wrong, and quantum
electrodynamics wins every time.

Could be classic electrodynamics be right but we are not applying
correctly, and then classic model not become a losser in this matter?

Let's see now. You have three things to figure out. RF, Light, and
QED. I hestitate to wonder what could possibly follow if you prove to
be to slow to figure these out. Perhaps sudoko patterns revealing the
entanglement of strange attractors. (Sorry for the translation
overload.)

And this started with Truth? :-)

Write when you receive more inspiration. (A supernatural divine
influence on the prophets, apostles, or sacred writers, by which they
were qualified to communicate moral or religious truth with authority;
a supernatural influence which qualifies men to receive and
communicate divine truth; also, the truth communicated.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC