|
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 17, 11:47 am, Jim Kelley wrote: From my perspective, these definitions are uniformly consistent with those used in engineering. Jim, you and others have disagreed with definitions in the IEEE Dictionary and implied it is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. One need only to access Google to verify that fact. You'll need to do that in order to prove your assertion. I have never disagreed with an IEEE definition. It is your understanding of them that I have occasionally disagreed with. As I said, it is only your understanding of them which conflicts with the physical definitions. I have always asserted that the IEEE definitions are of necessity, consistent with the underlying physics. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Might it just be simpler to say that you don't care for those who believe that we've discovered it all? Yes, that would be simpler and I would include anyone who believes that the scientific method leads to eternal perfection in some scientific heaven. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim, you and others have disagreed with definitions in the IEEE Dictionary and implied it is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. One need only to access Google to verify that fact. You'll need to do that in order to prove your assertion. I have never disagreed with an IEEE definition. It is your understanding of them that I have occasionally disagreed with. You and others have said that power cannot be transferred from one place to another, that only energy can be transferred. Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power transfer". You and others have said power doesn't flow, that it is energy that flows.Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power flow vector". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Jim, you and others have disagreed with definitions in the IEEE Dictionary and implied it is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. One need only to access Google to verify that fact. You'll need to do that in order to prove your assertion. I have never disagreed with an IEEE definition. It is your understanding of them that I have occasionally disagreed with. You and others have said that power cannot be transferred from one place to another, that only energy can be transferred. Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power transfer". You and others have said power doesn't flow, that it is energy that flows.Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power flow vector". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Two points here, one, I do not speak for others and they do not speak for me. Two, you do not speak for others as they do not speak for you. Please use quotes when referring to what I said. I do not wish to argue about what you think somebody said. Thanks. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
On Jun 18, 4:57 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Two points here, one, I do not speak for others and they do not speak for me. Two, you do not speak for others as they do not speak for you. Please use quotes when referring to what I said. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. In many replies to my postings, you tell me what I have said in the past without quoting anything I actually said. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you demand of me? I will honor your standard when you begin to pay it more than lip service. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 18, 5:03 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil, I challenge you to produce a link to a statement by anyone who said the above, including the words "The theory was never wrong" or words inarguably to that effect. I already did that, Jim, twice now. If theories are "never discarded", then it logically follows that theories are never wrong. If a theory or any part of a theory is ever wrong, hindsight tells us that it was only a hypothesis to start with, not a theory. Thus the ether theory was not a theory at all. The atomic theory was not a theory at all. The red shift theory of the expansion of the universe may not be a theory at all and may have to be demoted to a hypothesis in order to prove that theories are never wrong. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:03 pm, Jim Higgins wrote: Cecil, I challenge you to produce a link to a statement by anyone who said the above, including the words "The theory was never wrong" or words inarguably to that effect. I already did that, Jim, twice now. If theories are "never discarded", then it logically follows that theories are never wrong. If a theory or any part of a theory is ever wrong, hindsight tells us that it was only a hypothesis to start with, not a theory. Thus the ether theory was not a theory at all. The atomic theory was not a theory at all. The red shift theory of the expansion of the universe may not be a theory at all and may have to be demoted to a hypothesis in order to prove that theories are never wrong. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Cecil, This is really funny. You just cannot do it, can you? You rarely argue directly against someone's quote. You rephrase the issue "logically" into your own strawman, and then knock it down. A good debating trick, but not very effective here. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 18, 4:57 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Two points here, one, I do not speak for others and they do not speak for me. Two, you do not speak for others as they do not speak for you. Please use quotes when referring to what I said. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. In many replies to my postings, you tell me what I have said in the past without quoting anything I actually said. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you demand of me? I will honor your standard when you begin to pay it more than lip service. Cecil - Since you can't provide an instance in which I disagreed with an IEEE definition, perhaps you'll be a gentleman and retract your comments. Thanks, Jim, AC6XG |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Thus the ether theory was not a theory at all. The atomic theory was not a theory at all. ... 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Cecil: Really? I thought "newtonian luminous ether" simply became "Einsteinian Gravitational Ether." Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com