Superposition
 

this thread is still going?!?!? geez, how far has it evolved? maybe i
should bypass all my plonks and see who is still argueing in here and about
what? but why bother, its probably mostly the same ole arguments about
waves, reflections, conservation of this and that, and obviously by most of
the same old contributers that i have mostly blocked. why don't you guys
just go back and take fields and waves 101, it would save you all a lot of
time and energy.

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Actually, you're writing about momentum density. Momentum is
conserved, but momentum density isn't, ...

The momentum density may certainly change with area just
as the energy density may change with area. But in either
case, the total energy and total momentum are conserved.

As for any finite number being an infinite percentage above
zero, I think you should take that up with the next mathematician
you meet.

The equation for any percentage change from zero is
100(X-0)/0 Plug any value of X into that equation and
see what you get.

Division by zero is not infinity, Cecil, it's undefined.
It's good to see you agree that there's no conservation of
______ (fill in the blank)density, any more than there's a
law of the conservation of power. Have a good thanksgiving.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Superposition
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Which, of course, yields:
kg/s
which is not momentum, ...

You made a mistake somewhere, Richard. The equation I
gave is a *volume density, not an area density* so you
are one 'm' short. You should have gotten kg*m/s
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:

I'm going to ignore your hodge-podge of obfuscations and
concentrate on only one point.

The ONLY thing under discussion here is our disagreement about the
canceling waves heading back toward the source from the match point. You
claim those waves must exist and then cancel over a short distance (I
believe you reduced the distance to 'dx' or something similar.) I claim
those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be canceled.

You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

A 70.7 volt EM wave is incident upon an impedance discontinuity
with a reflection coefficient of 0.7143 at point '+'. Exactly
how does that forward wave avoid being partially reflected from
the Rho=0.7143 impedance discontinuity at point '+'?

Here's the circuit:

SGCL---50 ohm T-line---+---1/2WL 300 ohm T-line---50 ohm load
Pfor1=100w--

Why are there no reflections at point '+' where the physical
reflection coefficient is 0.7143? Gene's Magic at work?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Umm, yes, if your Xeroxed authors need that much help in you
describing what they must have meant, but didn't say, then throwing in
previously undisclosed terms might do the trick.

I probably misspelled a word also, Richard, so you can
also jump on that with all four feet. Of course, it should
have been "volume" instead of "area". It's a mental mistake
that is easy to make and it certainly not the same magnitude
of your mistake of declaring that reflections from non-
reflective glass are brighter than the surface of the sun.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Division by zero is not infinity, Cecil, it's undefined.
It's good to see you agree that there's no conservation of
______ (fill in the blank)density, any more than there's a
law of the conservation of power. Have a good thanksgiving.

Division by a quantity as it approaches zero is not
always undefined, Tom. The limit, as the denominator
approaches zero, is often the first infinity, aleph-null.

The momentum in any volume of space must be conserved.
The joules in the joules/sec must be conserved. Please
don't try to hoodwink the uninitiated into believing
otherwise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Since we are annoying "Dave" (whoever he is), I will stop now.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. Funny you would forget so quickly.

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Here's what you said:

I claim those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be canceled.

The physical impedance discontinuity certainly exists yet
you say it doesn't reflect any waves because the "waves
never exist at all".

So the question still remains: Exactly how does a physical
impedance discontinuity not reflect any waves (in violation
of the laws of physics)? Why doesn't a Rho of 0.7143 reflect
71.43% of the incident voltage like it is supposed to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. Funny you would forget so quickly.

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Here's what you said:

I claim those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be
canceled.

The physical impedance discontinuity certainly exists yet
you say it doesn't reflect any waves because the "waves
never exist at all".

So the question still remains: Exactly how does a physical
impedance discontinuity not reflect any waves (in violation
of the laws of physics)? Why doesn't a Rho of 0.7143 reflect
71.43% of the incident voltage like it is supposed to?

Cecil,

You don't seem to be a moron. Why are you acting like one?

I very carefully limited the scope of my comment to the situation
involving the two waves that supposedly cancel within a "dx" distance.
Anything else is purely in your imagination.

It is interesting that the spear I chucked through the heart of your
argument was met simply with a claim of "obfuscation". If that's the way
you want to play, then enjoy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Superposition
 

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. Funny you would forget so quickly.

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Here's what you said:

I claim those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be
canceled.

The physical impedance discontinuity certainly exists yet
you say it doesn't reflect any waves because the "waves
never exist at all".

So the question still remains: Exactly how does a physical
impedance discontinuity not reflect any waves (in violation
of the laws of physics)? Why doesn't a Rho of 0.7143 reflect
71.43% of the incident voltage like it is supposed to?

Cecil,

You don't seem to be a moron. Why are you acting like one?

I very carefully limited the scope of my comment to the situation
involving the two waves that supposedly cancel within a "dx" distance.
Anything else is purely in your imagination.

It is interesting that the spear I chucked through the heart of your
argument was met simply with a claim of "obfuscation". If that's the way
you want to play, then enjoy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

ah, you are learning well grasshopper. it was fun to tweak these threads,
but it gets old after a while.

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Division by zero is not infinity, Cecil, it's undefined.
It's good to see you agree that there's no conservation of
______ (fill in the blank)density, any more than there's a
law of the conservation of power. Have a good thanksgiving.

Division by a quantity as it approaches zero is not
always undefined, Tom. The limit, as the denominator
approaches zero, is often the first infinity, aleph-null.

The momentum in any volume of space must be conserved.
The joules in the joules/sec must be conserved. Please
don't try to hoodwink the uninitiated into believing
otherwise.

But you didn't write anything about "The limit, as the
denominator approaches zero," Cecil. I just wrote that
energy and momentum are conserved, but their rate of
delivery certainly isn't. You're just arguing for the sake of
hearing yourself argue, Cecil. As for Aleph-null, that's a
mathematico-logical fantasy that was brought into existence
by giving a name to a made-up abstraction, and then using
a set of artificial, logical manipulations on the name as proof of
its existence. It's a stunt Western philosophers have been using
for centuries to confuse the gullible. I'm surprised
an intelligent man of science, like you, fell for it, Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I very carefully limited the scope of my comment to the situation
involving the two waves that supposedly cancel within a "dx" distance.
Anything else is purely in your imagination.

Yes, and that is exactly what I am talking about. For
your argument to be true, you must prove that the
reflection from a physical impedance discontinuity
never existed. So the question remains: Exactly how
does the reflected wave from a physical impedance
never exist, as you say? That wave is one of the
two waves you are talking about above.

Why does the reflected wave with 70.7v of incident
voltage and a physical Rho=0.7143 never exist? What
allows that reflected wave to violate the laws of
physics?

Here is the example again:


70.7v Rho=0.7143
source--50 ohm coax--+--1/2WL 300 ohm twinlead---50 ohm load

Why did the reflection from the physical impedance
discontinuity at '+' "never exist" according to you?
Please stop refusing to answer that simple question.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
It is interesting that the spear I chucked through the heart of your
argument was met simply with a claim of "obfuscation". If that's the way
you want to play, then enjoy.

It is interesting to note that the ten spears you threw
in the dark were all aimed at diverting the issue rather
than answering one simple question.

You say the reflected wave from a physical impedance
discontinuity never existed - now prove that assertion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
But you didn't write anything about "The limit, as the
denominator approaches zero," Cecil.

I assumed that any reasonably rational person would
understand what I was talking about. I apologize for
misjudging you.

As for Aleph-null, that's a
mathematico-logical fantasy that was brought into existence
by giving a name to a made-up abstraction, and then using
a set of artificial, logical manipulations on the name as proof of
its existence. It's a stunt Western philosophers have been using
for centuries to confuse the gullible. I'm surprised
an intelligent man of science, like you, fell for it, Cecil.

Good grief, Tom. Aleph-null is the number of natural numbers,
a very useful concept. I'm surprised you are ignorant of such.

Incidentally, truth, love, and justice are all names
given to made-up abstractions. Too bad you reject them.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
But you didn't write anything about "The limit, as the
denominator approaches zero," Cecil.

I assumed that any reasonably rational person would
understand what I was talking about. I apologize for
misjudging you.

As for Aleph-null, that's a
mathematico-logical fantasy that was brought into existence
by giving a name to a made-up abstraction, and then using
a set of artificial, logical manipulations on the name as proof of
its existence. It's a stunt Western philosophers have been using
for centuries to confuse the gullible. I'm surprised
an intelligent man of science, like you, fell for it, Cecil.

Good grief, Tom. Aleph-null is the number of natural numbers,
a very useful concept. I'm surprised you are ignorant of such.

Incidentally, truth, love, and justice are all names
given to made-up abstractions. Too bad you reject them.

The turkey meat must have been real dry at your place this
Thanksgiving, Cecil. So dry, it dried up your
reason. Better luck at Christmas.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Superposition
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
The turkey meat must have been real dry at your place this
Thanksgiving, Cecil. So dry, it dried up your
reason. Better luck at Christmas.

The technical content of your posting is noted, Tom.
I don't have a bone to pick with you so I wonder why
you engage in such ad hominem attacks.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

You say the reflected wave from a physical impedance
discontinuity never existed - now prove that assertion.

As usual no response to this simple challenge. People
who assert that reflected waves never existed have never
offered one iota of proof for that assertion. OTOH, one
only need look in a mirror to see those reflections.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

You say the reflected wave from a physical impedance
discontinuity never existed - now prove that assertion.

As usual no response to this simple challenge. People
who assert that reflected waves never existed have never
offered one iota of proof for that assertion. OTOH, one
only need look in a mirror to see those reflections.

Cecil,

We were talking about the equivalent of AR glass, with no reflections.

Do you see yourself when you look into an AR mirror? That would explain
a lot.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
We were talking about the equivalent of AR glass, with no reflections.

Sorry Gene, there are reflections from AR glass because
the index of refraction is in the ballpark of 1.2222.
The non-existence of reflections from a 1.0 to 1.2
transition in the index of refraction is impossible.

Do you see yourself when you look into an AR mirror? That would explain
a lot.

Of course, human eyes cannot respond in 1/2 of a cycle
at light frequencies. If one had an instrument sensitive
enough, one would see that exact reflection during the
first 1/2 cycle. And it never goes away - it just gets
canceled by a complimentary reflection from the "load".

Maybe we need to slow it down to your brain speed. Would
a two second delay in the beginning of the cancellation
process work for you? SGCL is a Signal Generator equipped
with a Circulator and Load resistor. The lines are lossless.
t0 is when the source wave is first incident upon the
impedance discontinuity at '+'.

Rho=0.7143
100w SGCL--50 ohm line--+--1 sec long 300 ohm line--50 ohm load

At t0+1 sec, a 51 watt reflection exists at point '+' and the
forward power on the 300 ohm line is 49 watts. That 51 watt
reflected wave exists for the two seconds it takes the reflected
wave from the load to arrive. That 51 watt reflected wave is
warming up the load resistor in the circulator during that
time.

You say that 51 watt reflection never existed. Good luck
on being able to prove your assertion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
We were talking about the equivalent of AR glass, with no reflections.

Sorry Gene, there are reflections from AR glass because
the index of refraction is in the ballpark of 1.2222.
The non-existence of reflections from a 1.0 to 1.2
transition in the index of refraction is impossible.

Do you see yourself when you look into an AR mirror? That would
explain a lot.

Of course, human eyes cannot respond in 1/2 of a cycle
at light frequencies. If one had an instrument sensitive
enough, one would see that exact reflection during the
first 1/2 cycle. And it never goes away - it just gets
canceled by a complimentary reflection from the "load".

Maybe we need to slow it down to your brain speed. Would
a two second delay in the beginning of the cancellation
process work for you? SGCL is a Signal Generator equipped
with a Circulator and Load resistor. The lines are lossless.
t0 is when the source wave is first incident upon the
impedance discontinuity at '+'.

Rho=0.7143
100w SGCL--50 ohm line--+--1 sec long 300 ohm line--50 ohm load

At t0+1 sec, a 51 watt reflection exists at point '+' and the
forward power on the 300 ohm line is 49 watts. That 51 watt
reflected wave exists for the two seconds it takes the reflected
wave from the load to arrive. That 51 watt reflected wave is
warming up the load resistor in the circulator during that
time.

You say that 51 watt reflection never existed. Good luck
on being able to prove your assertion.

Cecil,

You are just toooo funny.

You gas on about something that you believe happens in 1/2 cycle, and
you want ME to prove something???

Going back to sleep.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
We were talking about the equivalent of AR glass, with no reflections.

Sorry Gene, there are reflections from AR glass because
the index of refraction is in the ballpark of 1.2222.
The non-existence of reflections from a 1.0 to 1.2
transition in the index of refraction is impossible.

Do you see yourself when you look into an AR mirror? That would
explain a lot.

Of course, human eyes cannot respond in 1/2 of a cycle
at light frequencies. If one had an instrument sensitive
enough, one would see that exact reflection during the
first 1/2 cycle. And it never goes away - it just gets
canceled by a complimentary reflection from the "load".

Maybe we need to slow it down to your brain speed. Would
a two second delay in the beginning of the cancellation
process work for you? SGCL is a Signal Generator equipped
with a Circulator and Load resistor. The lines are lossless.
t0 is when the source wave is first incident upon the
impedance discontinuity at '+'.

Rho=0.7143
100w SGCL--50 ohm line--+--1 sec long 300 ohm line--50 ohm load

At t0+1 sec, a 51 watt reflection exists at point '+' and the
forward power on the 300 ohm line is 49 watts. That 51 watt
reflected wave exists for the two seconds it takes the reflected
wave from the load to arrive. That 51 watt reflected wave is
warming up the load resistor in the circulator during that
time.

You say that 51 watt reflection never existed. Good luck
on being able to prove your assertion.

You gas on about something that you believe happens in 1/2 cycle, and
you want ME to prove something???

1/2 cycle is a real amount of time in which things happen.
Denying it because you cannot see it is ridiculous.
I slowed everything down for you so it takes two seconds
for something to happen. Why are you afraid to discuss it?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

When an EM wave disappears in its original direction of
travel, what happens to its energy?

What happens to the energy flowing in the lamp cord when you turn out
your desk lamp? :-)

73, ac6xg

Superposition
 

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:38:34 -0800, Jim Kelley wrote:



Cecil Moore wrote:

When an EM wave disappears in its original direction of
travel, what happens to its energy?

What happens to the energy flowing in the lamp cord when you turn out
your desk lamp? :-)

73, ac6xg

Now that's funny!

Walt, W2DU

Superposition
 

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

When an EM wave disappears in its original direction of
travel, what happens to its energy?

What happens to the energy flowing in the lamp cord when you turn out
your desk lamp? :-)

73, ac6xg


Better question might be, when a run of conductor just happens to be
resonate/impedance-matched at 60Hz, why isn't massive amounts of 60Hz
ELF being radiated?

Certainly the internal resistance of the multi-megawatt generator(s)
isn't a factor ... chuckle

Regards,
JS

Superposition
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
When an EM wave disappears in its original direction of
travel, what happens to its energy?

What happens to the energy flowing in the lamp cord when you turn out
your desk lamp? :-)

It still exists. It just ceases to be converted to
heat. Do you believe energy can be destroyed?

We know the EM reflected wave is not converted to
heat. So its energy still exists as EM energy.
Where does that energy go?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

On 27 Nov, 06:00, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
When an EM wave disappears in its original direction of
travel, what happens to its energy?

What happens to the energy flowing in the lamp cord when you turn out
your desk lamp? :-)

It still exists. It just ceases to be converted to
heat. Do you believe energy can be destroyed?

We know the EM reflected wave is not converted to
heat. So its energy still exists as EM energy.
Where does that energy go?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ceci,
If I have a 20 foot barge pole in my hand
and I poke somebody with it heat is generated
at the other end of the pole. There is no energy
left in the pole!
Art

Superposition
 

art wrote:
If I have a 20 foot barge pole in my hand
and I poke somebody with it heat is generated
at the other end of the pole. There is no energy
left in the pole!

Actually Art, there is plenty of energy left in
the pole. The kinetic energy may be gone but the
potential energy and atomic energy are still
there. Remember e=mc^2?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

On Nov 27, 9:00 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
When an EM wave disappears in its original direction of
travel, what happens to its energy?

What happens to the energy flowing in the lamp cord when you turn out
your desk lamp? :-)

It still exists. It just ceases to be converted to
heat. Do you believe energy can be destroyed?

I am surprised you did not provide a more complete answer to the
question.

When the switch is opened it creates a point with a reflection
coefficient of 1 so
all the energy reaching the point is 100% reflected. This reflected
energy flows
back along the line until it reaches a distribution transformer where
it is
transformed back into the transmission system. It then flows back
along the
transmission system until it reaches the generator (passing through
several
transformers along the way). Of course, there are numerous impedance
discontinuities which make computation more complex and increase the
settling time, but the priniciple of reflected energy still holds.

For convenience, we assume the generator is in a hydraulic plant
which
transforms the energy of flowing water into electricity. This is
reversable, so
the reflected energy is transformed through the generator and turbine
into a
reflected water flow which flows up the penstock. Of course, the net
water
flow is still downhill, but never forget that there is a real forward
flow and a
real reflected flow of water.

It is a bit harder to explain where the reflected ernergy goes in a
thermal
plant because the process does not appear reversible, that is, energy
into
the generator is not obviously converted back into coal. Still, it
must happen
somehow. After all the generator in the thermal plant is fundamentally
the
same as the one in the hydraulic. This leads to the inescapble
conclusion
that there must be reflected coal trains carrying coal back to the
mines,
though the net flow is still from the mine to the thermal plant.

Or is it just possible that some have been overextending a mostly
useful tool?

....Keith

Superposition
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
What happens to the energy flowing in the lamp cord when you turn out
your desk lamp? :-)

It still exists. It just ceases to be converted to
heat. Do you believe energy can be destroyed?

I am surprised you did not provide a more complete answer to the
question.

I did "provide a more complete answer" the last time Jim
made that identical comment.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

On 27 Nov, 07:02, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
If I have a 20 foot barge pole in my hand
and I poke somebody with it heat is generated
at the other end of the pole. There is no energy
left in the pole!

Actually Art, there is plenty of energy left in
the pole. The kinetic energy may be gone but the
potential energy and atomic energy are still
there. Remember e=mc^2?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Yes, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
(Newton)
There was no action in the pole other than at the ends
where the forces were kinetic. There was no change to
the potential energy. As far as Einsteins is concerned
his work is still a subject of contention.
Art

Superposition
 

John Smith wrote:
"Better question might be, when a run of conductor just happens to be
resonant / impedance matched at 60 Hz, why isn`t massive amounts of 60
Hz ELF being radiated?"

The hot and neutral conductors are too close together to allow energy to
stray too far.

Certain antennas exhibit "power gain". Terman defines power gain as:
"the ratio of power that must be radiated by the comparison (reference)
antenna to develop a particular field strength in the direction of
maximum radiation to the power that must be radiated by the directional
antenna to obtain the same field strength in the same direction."

The definition implies more power required by the less directional
(reference) antenna to equal the signal produced by the directional
antenna which is said to have the "power gain" in a certain direction.

The constant is the power fed to both antennas, gain and reference. The
gain antenna is sending more of its power towards the target and not
wasting so much in undesired directions. If it wasted power like the
less directional antenna, it would eat more power in total to have a
power gain ? on its target. In fact, the directional antenna is just
making more effective use of the energy it receives, not sending out
opposing streams of coincident energy.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Superposition
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
John Smith wrote:
"Better question might be, when a run of conductor just happens to be
resonant / impedance matched at 60 Hz, why isn`t massive amounts of 60
Hz ELF being radiated?"

The hot and neutral conductors are too close together to allow energy to
stray too far.

Yes, and besides that, 1/2WL at 60 Hz is 1553 miles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

On Nov 23, 9:56 am, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
snip
As forAleph-null, that's a
mathematico-logical fantasy that was brought into existence
by giving a name to a made-up abstraction, and then using
a set of artificial, logical manipulations on the name as proof of
its existence. It's a stunt Western philosophers have been using
for centuries to confuse the gullible. I'm surprised
an intelligent man of science, like you, fell for it, Cecil.

Guess what? EVERY SINGLE LAST BIT of mathematics
is "made up abstraction". All mathematics, *all of it, is an
abstraction! You have a problem with abstraction?
Then what do you suggest be used in it's place?
You claim that "Western philosophers" have made it
up just to "confuse the gullible". So then what
alternative philosophy do you suggest should be
use that does _not_ confuse the gullible? If you cannot
provide it and prove that it indeed has more merit than
the already-existent philosophies then why bother
with it?

Superposition
 

On Nov 17, 11:46 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.

The void technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
Why don't you present some theory and math that prove me
wrong instead of just waving your hands and uttering ad
hominem attacks?

That's not an ad hominem attack, it's a real critique of your
reasoning.
Ad hominem attacks are attacks on you, the person, not on your
argument. Not once was he attacking you, the person, above. He
was attacking your reasoning.

Appeal to authority = logical fallacy. Fact.

Not providing any physical empricial evidence to back your claim,
or theory backed by such evidence, when talking about physical,
empiricial stuff = worthless argument. Fact.

So your argument above contains an amazing 0% worth of valid
reasoning.

Evidence for his claim already exists. You can find it with any good
research into known physics. Look up all the famous experiments
that have been done to derive electromagnetic theory, and see all
the proofs. So the evidence for his claim is already on the table.
You now need to provide evidence and logic to refute it, if you want
to have a case.

I'd say his critique is 99% accurate. The last 1% is because he thinks
you need to "convince" people, which is not quite so as you have no
direct power to change others' beliefs: they must first want to be
convinced themselves. What you need is objective evidence and
logical basis for your arguments, which seems 100% lacking. That
last 1% is not because your argument is good.

Superposition
 

On Nov 17, 3:50 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
snip
Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.


They have. But you twisted their argument. Therefore,
they are not saying what you think they are saying. What
they are saying is well proven. What you think they are
saying is not. Big difference there.

Superposition
 

On Nov 17, 9:18 pm, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right.

Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.

And of course, you will mount every diversion known to
man to avoid facing the technical facts as explained by
Hecht, Born & Wolf, Melles-Groit, and the FSU web page.

Sorry Cecil, quoting sources you can't possibly understand, yourself,
won't prove anything. Let me know if you ever plan on doing it right.

You are wrong too. He CAN "possibly" understand them, he does
not WANT to. You allude to this with "plan on doing it right", which
obviously implies that he could understand them if he wanted to,
as he'd need to in order to do it right, and rather he doesn't WANT
to.

But no, nothing has been proven here.

Superposition
 

On Nov 16, 4:10 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
Nice "when are you going to stop beating your mother" sort of
question. And what was your reply?

It's a rhetorical question, Tom. What is your reply?
When someone (besides Eugene Hecht) explains it to
my satisfaction I will stop beating that dead horse.

Yes, no, yes, no fights won't get you anywhere.

Superposition
 

mike3 wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:56 am, "Tom Donaly" wrote:
snip
As forAleph-null, that's a
mathematico-logical fantasy that was brought into existence
by giving a name to a made-up abstraction, and then using
a set of artificial, logical manipulations on the name as proof of
its existence. It's a stunt Western philosophers have been using
for centuries to confuse the gullible. I'm surprised
an intelligent man of science, like you, fell for it, Cecil.

Guess what? EVERY SINGLE LAST BIT of mathematics
is "made up abstraction". All mathematics, *all of it, is an
abstraction! You have a problem with abstraction?
Then what do you suggest be used in it's place?
You claim that "Western philosophers" have made it
up just to "confuse the gullible". So then what
alternative philosophy do you suggest should be
use that does _not_ confuse the gullible? If you cannot
provide it and prove that it indeed has more merit than
the already-existent philosophies then why bother
with it?

So, an attack on one part of mathematical theory is an attack
on all mathematics? I like your vigorous defense of mathematics,
but I think you missed the point.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Superposition
 

mike3 wrote:
So the evidence for his claim is already on the table.

Would you mind providing a reference that says that the
delay through a 2" dia, 100T, 10" long coil can possibly
be 3 ns?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

mike3 wrote:
They have. But you twisted their argument. Therefore,
they are not saying what you think they are saying. What
they are saying is well proven. What you think they are
saying is not. Big difference there.

Your gut feeling, without any evidence whatsoever,
is noted.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com