Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Sure sounds like interference corresponds to (rather than
causes) the redistribution of photon energy as described on
the FSU web page.

Yes it does.

Seems you have changed your mind from this earlier
assertion of yours.

There is no way to describe the mechanism for a reversal in the
direction of energy by means other than reflection.

Not at all. But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us. Your vehement protestations and
testimonials about retractions and apologies notwithstanding.

Can you spell R-E-D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N?

Well if not, I'm sure my spell checker can. But you're demonstrated
that you can, and we're all very proud of you. :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
But drawing such a conclusion does reveal that you
apparently still have misconceptions consistent with the 4th mechanism
of reflection you introduced to us.

As you know, years ago I changed the "4th mechanism
of reflection" to the "redistribution" described on
the FSU web page and apologized for my poor choice
of words. You are still kicking the dog after he
stopped wetting the floor years ago.

You asked for the mechanism that causes reversal of
the direction of energy flow during wave cancellation
and I provided it. Here it is again:

micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/interference/waveinteractions/index.html

Previously I was using the definition of "reflection",
common to amateur radio, as any reversal in the
direction of energy flow in a transmission line. I
then realized that a "reflection" only applies to a
single wave, not to two interacting waves. I apologized
and revised my article.

Please drag yourself into the present. Some of your
past assertions were/are false. I can dig up many
more if you desire.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com