Keith Dysart wrote:
The debate has never been about a little looseness
in the terminology;

Actually, I believe that every disagreement between
Jim Kelley and myself has been semantic in nature.
There are no technical fundamentals upon which we
disagree.

We both agree that a light wave from Alpha Centauri
that hits the earth has transferred energy.

We disagree about a light wave from Alpha Centauri
that misses the earth. I say the energy in the light
wave is in the process of being transferred. Jim
disagrees.

The debate is over much more fundamental issues.

Like what? The definition of "transfer"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, I believe that every disagreement between
Jim Kelley and myself has been semantic in nature.
There are no technical fundamentals upon which we
disagree.

I don't care about your use of words, Cecil. I am only concerned with
some of the concepts that you describe.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

Actually, I believe that every disagreement between
Jim Kelley and myself has been semantic in nature.
There are no technical fundamentals upon which we
disagree.

I don't care about your use of words, Cecil. I am only concerned with
some of the concepts that you describe.

I use words to describe those concepts. You and I do not
agree on the definitions of those words. Reality is what
it is. It is the different definitions that we are using
that is the problem.

For instance, what if I am using a different definition
than you are for "concepts" in your posting above? What
if you were writing in a language that I didn't understand?
The outcome would be similar to what we have now.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
I am only concerned with
some of the concepts that you describe.

When you repeat those concepts back to me, they bear
no resemblance to the concepts that I am trying to
describe. That is proof that our disagreements are
semantic. (The only other possibility is that you
are unethical and are deliberately bearing false
witness against me.)

I use words to describe my concepts. You and I do not
agree on the definitions of those words. Reality is what
it is. It is the different definitions that we are using
that is the problem. "Transfer" is obviously one of those
words. I say all EM waves transfer energy. You say not
all EM waves transfer energy. It is simply that we are
using different definitions of the word "transfer".
There are many other words for which we have different
definitions.

You and I might as well be trying to communicate in two
foreign languages that neither one of us understand.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I am only concerned with some of the concepts that you describe.


When you repeat those concepts back to me, they bear
no resemblance to the concepts that I am trying to
describe.

To you, they may not. But those concepts remain just as ludicrous no
matter who describes them. :-)

That is proof that our disagreements are
semantic. (The only other possibility is that you
are unethical and are deliberately bearing false
witness against me.)

The obvious possibility being dismissed out of hand is the one where
you are wrong and someone else is right.

I use words to describe my concepts. You and I do not
agree on the definitions of those words.

Yes. Others also use words, and there are cases where your
understanding of the meaning of the words is not necessarily the same
as the meaning intended by the author. We know this by comparing the
things you say about physics with fundamental principles of physics.

It is simply that we are
using different definitions of the word "transfer".

If that is the case then I am using the definition pertinent to the
physics of our discussion, and you are using whichever one you think
will prevent your argument from containing a false statement.

You and I might as well be trying to communicate in two
foreign languages that neither one of us understand.

But only if it suits the purposes of internet one-upsmanship,
apparently.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
The obvious possibility being dismissed out of hand is the one where you
are wrong and someone else is right.

No, that is not dismissed out of hand. I enjoy being wrong
because I always learn something new. You have not proved
me wrong because you haven't even understood what I said.

When you repeat what you think I said, and it is
not what I said, there is something wrong besides
someone being technically incorrect and someone being
technically correct.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Dec 12, 6:03 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
I am only concerned with
some of the concepts that you describe.

When you repeat those concepts back to me, they bear
no resemblance to the concepts that I am trying to
describe. That is proof that our disagreements are
semantic. (The only other possibility is that you
are unethical and are deliberately bearing false
witness against me.)

I use words to describe my concepts. You and I do not
agree on the definitions of those words. Reality is what
it is. It is the different definitions that we are using
that is the problem. "Transfer" is obviously one of those
words. I say all EM waves transfer energy. You say not
all EM waves transfer energy. It is simply that we are
using different definitions of the word "transfer".
There are many other words for which we have different
definitions.

Can you expand on the two different interpretations of
"transfer" that will bring these views into alignment?

Perhaps you really are disagreeing on whether EM
waves always transfer energy (using the common
definition of "transfer").

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Can you expand on the two different interpretations of
"transfer" that will bring these views into alignment?

Perhaps you really are disagreeing on whether EM
waves always transfer energy (using the common
definition of "transfer").

Jim refuses to provide a reference for his definition
of "transfer". My unabridged Webster's has 20 definitions
for the word including, "to be moved from one place to
another". I say the light waves from Alpha Centauri are
transferring, i.e. moving energy from that star to other
points in the universe. The Poynting vector for those
light waves can be computed if necessary. EM waves cannot
exist without energy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

Can you expand on the two different interpretations of
"transfer" that will bring these views into alignment?

Perhaps you really are disagreeing on whether EM
waves always transfer energy (using the common
definition of "transfer").


Jim refuses to provide a reference for his definition
of "transfer".

As I have said before, I am using whatever definition is used, for
example, by Haliday and Resnick when they talk about power. I am not
able to inquire as to what exact definition they use. All I know is
when you say that energy is "transferring" in a transmission line, and
then try to use that statement as proof that "power is moving" in a
transmission line, you have the wrong idea about transfer of energy.
That is precisely where this discussion originated, but I'm sure that
you will disagree - as it is your nature to be highly disagreeable on
this subject.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
aAll I know is
when you say that energy is "transferring" in a transmission line, and
then try to use that statement as proof that "power is moving" in a
transmission line, you have the wrong idea about transfer of energy.

I recently tried, on this newsgroup, to explain to Richard
Harrison that power does *NOT* move in a transmission line.
Richard thinks that power does move as do most of my
engineering textbooks and the IEEE. Johnson, Ramo, and Whinnery
all talk about "power flow". Because it was hairlipping you,
I removed any reference to "power flow" from my magazine
article in support of your concept that power does not flow.

I have *NEVER* said "power is moving", at least not in this
century. That is just your straw man raising its ugly head
yet once again. Jim, when you force yourself to bear false
witness about what I have said, you are essentially giving
up whatever integrity and ethics you ever had. Why you have to
resort to such underhanded unfair techniques speaks volumes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com