Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 30, 5:05 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In schools are all theories.

the only purpose for disproved theories in schools is for historical
context. sometimes it is useful to show students what doesn't work so
they don't waste time repeating past mistakes. aether theories are
one that is taught and then demonstrated in class as incorrect. once
the student makes the measurements they get a better feeling why
aethers are bogus.

Up to now we have agreed that Maxwell/Lorents aether is bogus and that in
the space is the plasma (ions and electrons) and the dust. They rotate with
the Sun in the form of a whirl.

You are the first radioman who admit this.
S*

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 31, 12:34*pm, K1TTT wrote:
what does happen to that last photon in the infinite series of smaller
and smaller reflections between discontinuities??

It doesn't matter. At HF wavelengths, the last photon is not going to
have an appreciable effect ( but maybe at gamma-ray wavelengths). The
collapse of the probability function indicates that if one runs a
large number of trials, n% of those very last photons will be
reflected and (100-n%) of them will be absorbed. That probability
function has never been proven to be wrong.

I have no idea why an otherwise knowledgeable individual could be
argumentative concerning this subject.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 31, 12:58*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
You are the first radioman who admit this.

What does the fact that particles with rest mass are spiraling away
from the sun have to do with photons that propagate in (almost) a
straight line away from the sun? The only effect that the sun has on
photons emitted by the sun is to slow them down.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 31, 5:58*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On May 30, 5:05 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



*In schools are all theories.
the only purpose for disproved theories in schools is for historical

context. *sometimes it is useful to show students what doesn't work so
they don't waste time repeating past mistakes. *aether theories are
one that is taught and then demonstrated in class as incorrect. *once
the student makes the measurements they get a better feeling why
aethers are bogus.

Up to now we have agreed that Maxwell/Lorents aether is bogus and that in
the space is the plasma (ions and electrons) and the dust. They rotate with
the Sun in the form of a whirl.

You are the first radioman who admit this.
S*

the solar wind is well know and easily studies with the satellite data
available today. but it is not an aether, the interplanetary plasma
does not propagate the light from the sun, it just gets in the way.

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 31, 6:05*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On May 31, 12:34*pm, K1TTT wrote:

what does happen to that last photon in the infinite series of smaller
and smaller reflections between discontinuities??

It doesn't matter. At HF wavelengths, the last photon is not going to
have an appreciable effect ( but maybe at gamma-ray wavelengths). The
collapse of the probability function indicates that if one runs a
large number of trials, n% of those very last photons will be
reflected and (100-n%) of them will be absorbed. That probability
function has never been proven to be wrong.

I have no idea why an otherwise knowledgeable individual could be
argumentative concerning this subject.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

i hate mechanical analogies, they lead to too many misconceptions.
the last photon question was meant to be rhetorical.

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On 25 mayo, 03:35, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

PSE, with the due respect and consideration toward you an the
distinguished colleagues and friends, Would you mind return to the
original question? (sorry if it is not this the most polite form to
ask it)

Hi Miguel,

I presume by "original question" you mean:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:06:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote:

¿Absorb the reflected power or amortiguate the effects of variyng load
impedance?

The answer is YES.

Now, if you mean by absorb that all absorbtion results in heat, then
the answer is NO.

If you mean by absorb that all energy is combined in a load, then the
answer is YES.

The difference between YES and NO is the PHASE differences of the two
energies that are combined.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi all

First the first: Sorry Szczepan, do not feel upset I wanted to say
"Me" don't go off topic with my own answers, not you.

Very interesting comments!
I think we must agree on meaning of words and basement concepts
employed to discuss these matters, otherwise we end up talking about
different "things" (Babel curse what confuses our tongues). If we do
not agree with meaning of, for example, "interaction", how can we
reach an agreement on much more complex things that depend on this
word/concept?
This is not a criticism to anyone, is only my point of view about what
I think is a partial source of apparently irreductible positions in
the group.
I believe Richard, K1TTT and me, have sinchronized minds about
"Interaction" word/concept meaning. I suppose must be a more deep
underlying assumptios that make it possible. However I believe I
understand the "idea" underlying Cecil concept about "interaction" and
I believe I can "see" his point, To me, Cecil's interaction concept it
is a very common idea, I do not think Cecil be a "hard to die" man :)
I think we have to do our more honest efforts to sinchronize ideas.
I do not want to go off topic, but let me bring a couple of thinkings
to the table (they are not mine).

* Students come into our classrooms with an established world-view,
formed by years of prior experience and learning.
* Even as it evolves, a student's world-view filters all experiences
and affects their interpretation of observations.
* Students are emotionally attached to their world-views and will not
give up their world-views easily.
* Challenging, revising, and restructuring one's world-view requires
much effort.
(from http://srri.umass.edu/topics/constructivism)

Why these above things would not happen to me?
......
Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an
interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of
A added to B?
Another question to clarify my undestanding of your propositions: do
you see waves interacting themselves in a discontinuity, or you see
them interacting with the discontinuity? or both phenomena at the same
time?. Change discontinuity for load and please tell me.

Richard, you said: -"Because" leads to superstition-; you are pointing
to causal relations?
I believe was you who said dislike representations, if it is yes, were
you aiming to create mental images of physical phenomena?
Here we often use the word "methafor" in figured sense instead
"analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is
a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real
(my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a
true methaphor or an analogy?

Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not
work... then, ciao analogy..!, not so bad :), however... notice!, our
ideas are not equal to the "out there" world. Concepts, models,
(mathematical models also, of course)... are not they our mind's
"analogies" "out there" sensorial/injstrumental perceived world?
These are not trivial epistemology issues, our "observer" leads
directly to the question about "Is the moon there when nobody
looks?" (N. D.Mermin). When we go out of our classic-simplistic-
realistic-traditional ham world... "we are in troubles, Houston",
slippery soil!, I make the sign of the cross! :)

K1TTT said: -Standing waves are a figment of your instrumentation-. My
dictionary translates "figment" as "product" or "chimera", please,
tell me what word should I use to correctly read the sentence?

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

"lu6etj" wrote
...

Here we often use the word "methafor" in figured sense instead
"analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is
a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real
(my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a
true methaphor or an analogy?

Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not
work... then, ciao analogy..!,

Radio waves and sound are in full analogy.

K1TTT said: -Standing waves are a figment of your instrumentation-. My
dictionary translates "figment" as "product" or "chimera", please,
tell me what word should I use to correctly read the sentence?

Waves always travel (pressure or voltage pulses). If the wave interact with
the reflected one than the places where the pressures/voltages change are
standing.

The reflected wave cam be weaker if the mirror is partialy transparent (or
if an absorbtion take place).
S*

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On May 31, 5:58 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:


Up to now we have agreed that Maxwell/Lorents aether is bogus and that in
the space is the plasma (ions and electrons) and the dust. They rotate
with
the Sun in the form of a whirl.

You are the first radioman who admit this.

the solar wind is well know and easily studies with the satellite data
available today. but it is not an aether,

The aether in sense of medium for light propagation.

the interplanetary plasma
does not propagate the light from the sun,

In the interstellar medium (ISM) are ions, electrons and dust.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s2.htm

The medium are the electrons ony. The rest are contaminations, like the fog
and dust in the air for the sound waves.
Do you see any sensible another solution?
S*

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On May 31, 4:36*pm, K1TTT wrote:
i hate mechanical analogies, they lead to too many misconceptions.
the last photon question was meant to be rhetorical.

I apologize for not recognizing that. Words don't always convey the
intended context.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Question about "Another look at reflections" article.
 

On Jun 1, 5:52*am, lu6etj wrote:
On 25 mayo, 03:35, Richard Clark wrote:



On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:17:41 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

PSE, with the due respect and consideration toward you an the
distinguished colleagues and friends, Would you mind return to the
original question? (sorry if it is not this the most polite form to
ask it)

Hi Miguel,

I presume by "original question" you mean:

On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:06:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj wrote:

¿Absorb the reflected power or amortiguate the effects of variyng load
impedance?

The answer is YES.

Now, if you mean by absorb that all absorbtion results in heat, then
the answer is NO.

If you mean by absorb that all energy is combined in a load, then the
answer is YES.

The difference between YES and NO is the PHASE differences of the two
energies that are combined.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi all

First the first: Sorry Szczepan, do not feel upset *I wanted to say
"Me" don't go off topic with my own answers, not you.

Very interesting comments!
I think we must agree on meaning of words and basement concepts
employed to discuss these matters, otherwise we end up talking about
different "things" (Babel curse what confuses our tongues). If we do
not agree with meaning of, for example, "interaction", how can we
reach an agreement on much more complex things that depend on this
word/concept?
This is not a criticism to anyone, is only my point of view about what
I think is a partial source of apparently irreductible positions in
the group.
I believe Richard, K1TTT and me, have sinchronized minds about
"Interaction" word/concept meaning. I suppose must be a more deep
underlying assumptios that make it possible. However I believe I
understand the "idea" underlying Cecil concept about "interaction" and
I believe I can "see" his point, To me, Cecil's interaction concept it
is a very common idea, I do not think Cecil be a "hard to die" man :)
I think we have to do our more honest efforts to sinchronize ideas.
I do not want to go off topic, but let me bring a couple of thinkings
to the table (they are not mine).

* Students come into our classrooms with an established world-view,
formed by years of prior experience and learning.
* Even as it evolves, a student's world-view filters all experiences
and affects their interpretation of observations.
* Students are emotionally attached to their world-views and will not
give up their world-views easily.
* Challenging, revising, and restructuring one's world-view requires
much effort.
(fromhttp://srri.umass.edu/topics/constructivism)

Why these above things would not happen to me?
.....
Returning: Cecil, given A+B=C, do you you see C as result of an
interaction (or mutual action) among A and B, or C a simply result of
A added to B?
Another question to clarify my undestanding of your propositions: do
you see waves interacting themselves in a discontinuity, or you see
them interacting with the discontinuity? or both phenomena at the same
time?. Change discontinuity for load and please tell me.

Richard, you said: -"Because" leads to superstition-; you are pointing
to causal relations?
I believe was you who said dislike representations, if it is yes, were
you aiming to create mental images of physical phenomena?
Here we often use the word "methafor" in figured sense instead
"analogy", for example, "my car it is as strong as a locomotive" it is
a true methaphor. In metaphor, there are two levels or terms: the real
(my car) and evoked or imaginary (locomotive). Coulored water is it a
true methaphor or an analogy?

Simple analogies as useful things until one (or more) of they not
work... then, ciao analogy..!, not so bad :), however... notice!, our
ideas are not equal to the "out there" world. Concepts, models,
(mathematical models also, of course)... are not they our mind's
"analogies" "out there" sensorial/injstrumental perceived world?
These are not trivial epistemology issues, our "observer" leads
directly to the question about "Is the moon there when nobody
looks?" (N. D.Mermin). When we go out of our classic-simplistic-
realistic-traditional ham world... "we are in troubles, Houston",
slippery soil!, I make the sign of the cross! :)

K1TTT said: -Standing waves are a figment of your instrumentation-. My
dictionary translates "figment" as "product" or "chimera", please,
tell me what word should I use to correctly read the sentence?

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

in this context figment=product. often used to describe something
that is a result of an over active imagination. the only reason you
can see standing waves is because a measurement or observation makes
them look like they are 'standing' when it is really the interaction
of two or more regular traveling waves.