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?

Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right. So far, you've given us nothing but a few
untestable assumptions and little else. A series of declarative
sentences and obscure analogies does not a theory make. When you can
work out 1. A logical framework, using vector calculus, in order to show
us, logically, why we should pay attention to you, and 2. A series of
easily replicated experiments that you've performed, and we can perform
in turn, to see how well your ideas are supported by reality, then,
maybe we should give you a hearing, but a series of unsupported
statements followed by a barrage of objection stoppers just isn't good
enough. This may be fun for you, but, for anyone dealing with you, it's
just a waste of time.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

Cecil,

Have you ever seriously read a copy of Born and Wolf? I have a couple of
editions right beside me, and I just read through the chapter on
interference again.

You would not recognize any of your claims in that chapter. B&W never
mention "interaction" at all, not even once. They completely avoid all
of the elementary Hecht-like handwaving. They don't even mention energy.
It is simply not necessary to do so. Classical physics is quite self
consistent. Assuming one does not make an error in the setup of the
problem (perhaps a poor assumption) or in the math, the energy will
always come out correctly. It is not an independent consideration.

It is possible to solve problems entirely in a framework of energy
analysis, as I have pointed out previously. Much of quantum mechanics is
done that way. However, energy consideration are not more or less
important than any other formulation. Use the method that is easiest.

In this case the problem is overspecified with impossible conditions.
Tom, Tom, and Roy have pointed out the difficulty. I agree with them.

You have specified voltage, current, and impedance at the same time.
These items cannot be arbitrary and independent.

You got it wrong. Try again.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Assuming one does not make an error in the setup of the
problem (perhaps a poor assumption) or in the math, the energy will
always come out correctly. It is not an independent consideration.

Energy has not been a consideration at all for many
people such as yourself. That's why you guys have
missed the boat as far as energy is concerned. You
have only given lip service to the conservation of
energy principle. When you are pressed for details,
you whole argument falls apart.

You got it wrong. Try again.

Please point out in detail what is wrong with it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
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.

The technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

mike3 wrote:
You are wrong too. He CAN "possibly" understand them, he does
not WANT to.

Sorry Mike, that is a lie. I sincerely want to
understand because that is the only way I can
learn. Nobody has offered any actual proof that
I am wrong. The absence of technical content of
your posting is prima facie evidence of the
ulterior motives in action here. Nice try at
obfuscation, but it doesn't work on intelligent,
knowledgeable people.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

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