On 5 jul, 06:31, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:51:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I apologize for my insistence dear Richard, I do not want to be
stubborn but I remember Carl Sagan telling: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence"

Hi Miguel,

Sagan never impressed me, and this quote even less. *It relies on
mystical explanations when ordinary works quite well.

and my posting about the very large
quantum number of the 3.5 MHz Xmtrs play here the "conservative"
role :)

The link leads to a lot of tedious and pedantic writing.

Your new analogy fails as quickly as the rest, so by extension I must
presume that the work revealed at your link fails too. *That is the
usual fate of tying two things together when one is a rhetorical
anchor.

When I speak of S+N/N, this is to mean that extraneous detail (fables
of mosquitoes, large cars and even larger blimps) only adds noise.

Skip the "extraordinary," stop the fables, and simply state your case.
When you remove all this noise, you may discover you are not writing
about a quantum system at all, but numbers without meaning. *A simple
test: what changes its quantum state at 3.5MHz? *Is it sub-atomic,
atomic, or molecular?

Richard: *Why a "white board"? has a special meaning? - You are
saying *Cecil it is as Dr. House? - Really nice car your RX-7, I envy
you! - My London friend is "missing2 I owe you some answers :(

Dr. House refuses to let students write on his white board.

I've driven RXs for 28 years: a 1978 and a 1990 GTU.

London is a nice place to be missing in. *I've spent time near
Vauxhall bridge in Westminster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sorry, I posted my answer in another branch of the thread (I hope not
to have bothered our friends...)

Hi Richard, good day:

Again you give me another rethoric answer... Please, tell us how to
measure to distinguish Osc. A from Osc. B, having Osc. A 4*10^28
quanta and Osc. B 4*10^28 +1 quanta, having each 80 m quantum 2.3 *
10^-19 J.

Your answers are making me remember = "It was the only explicit
answer you will ever get" or "Superman's cataracts with his xray
vision. This is probably going to be your only direct
answer." (Please do not go upsetting, I am joking).

You dislike my examples, you dislike R & H & K classic and obviously
really good peer reviewed book reference (and examples), you dislike
university notes, you dislike analogies, you dislike Sagan... Today I
know all things you dislike, what I do not know is how measure A and
B
oscillator to distinguish each other... :D
Remember, you are rebutting things stated in standard university
physics book, does not reverse the burden of proof.
Please be a good boy, be plain and do not resort to old tricks such
as
posting esoteric rocket science hiper-specialized incomprehensible
answers :)
......
I ommited to say the example of the University of New Mexico link
it is similar to the one given in "Physics for scientists and
engineers" (Serway & Beichner, my copy is in spanish). They say the
same about it.

Humorous note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for
analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :)

73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ