wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

wrote:


...

Newtonian gravity: experimentally verified; superseded and still used
within appropriate boundaries.




Yep. Plenty enough for argument to keep an open mind on the theories
still in use today ...


Is that babble supposed to mean something?

I don't think so. From Wikipedia:

"Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because
of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social
boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken
without serious consequences."

ac6xg

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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