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