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