Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:43:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:


Google fails to find anything under Newton's Law of Parity.
Which one of these is what you're talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physics_topics_M-Q#P
http://neohumanism.org/p/pa/parity.html

parity.

It's hard to enforce a law that doesn't exist.

Drivel: I tried to write a spoof of your postings mimicking your
style of technical word salad. I built the necessary framework, and
added copious amounts of buzzwords and technobabble. However, the
result was unimpressive and not even close to the quality of your
pseudo technological rants. I'm truly impressed at your ability to
fabricate such rubbish and would greatly appreciate some clues as to
how it is done.

Hint: Numbers, formulas, references, URL's, and specifics. Lacking
those, you would be a philosopher.

Incidentally, equilibrium is implied in the various FCC exams. If you
lack sufficient equilibrium to take the exams due to intoxication, the
FCC (or VE) will refuse to administer the exam.

So, look on the bright-side! Once you have proven Art wrong, you have
really done nothing at all!

We will still be stuck with the same mysteries, the same enigmas, the
same riddles! :-) Life would be NOT if not for the "unknowns" ... the
advances we can make, the riddles we can solve, etc. ...

Indeed, when I "run" a program to compute an area of a circle, the
volume of that sphere, the surface area of that sphere--it works! No
"error factor", no "pruning", no "adjustments", etc. Same with a
square, a rectangle, a cube, or for that matter, any polygon, be it 2d
or 3d ...

When I run "antenna equations/formulas", I get no joy. When our
"antenna formulas" approach to, around, 99.9999999999% of that
exactness, preciseness, we will be able to claim, "We are close!" ROFLOL

Until then, we will use the "Compute, then cut-and-prune-and-adjust
method(s.) :-(

But hey, if there where not such questions, inaccuracies and
"sloppy-ness", life would be boring -- now, wouldn't it?
another-straight-faced-look

Regards,
JS