On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:46:02 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I reply (is it OK "reply"?)

Hi Miguel,

Your usage is fine.

to Richard first because it is part of my
comment to Cecil. Yes, Richard. Tonight I said to me: -the worst term
that you could use, Miguel, was "ether"- :), because "ether" is a
hipotetical MATERIAL thing,

Hypothetical.

so, as on other material mediums we
usually can literally see interference because interference is
manifested on matter, but we need photographic plates, screens,
retinas, etc. to manifest electromagnetic interference, "loads" as say
Richard, ("observer" it is more sutil and difficult concept, I dare
not with "him").
I needed know what represent that in a line discontinuity (in a load
seems obvious) to better understand Cecil's examples in web page
(http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm).

Representing, representation, like the term redistribution, are all
crutches for intellect. If you get stuck on one, you are forever
behind. If it works - fine. When the crutch breaks, you have to be
able to walk away without feeling cheated. (Amusing, being able to
walk away means you never needed the crutch in the first place.)

....
Before continue I want to do a comment to know if we agree (more or
less). We partially think with words or symbols, words and symbols
represent concepts or perceptions, concepts are not "out there", as
Einstein said they a "free creations of human mind". There is not
energy out there, there is not velocity out there, that things are in
our brains (or consciusness if you prefer). We need consensus to
collective think on it, we need "sincrhonize" our minds to

Synchronize.

colectivelly think the world...
You think in english, I think in spanish, I need translate "your"
words to "my" words to understand what you say, I can not say: "whats
the hell is a rig!", where are "rigs"! only there are "equipos"
boys! :) For that I need understand what means Cecil with
redistribution, I belieive I can understand his idea behind the word,
I must make the effort because my own language barrier. Perhaps the
consensus word to it may be not "redistribution", but... what Cecil
tries explain to me? I try never identify the "map" (words, concepts)
with the "territory" (hipotetical real world) because misleading me.

Redistribute is an action verb. Nothing happens until you measure it
(you need a load). This speaks to your Ether (or Aether or Æther)
being a medium, but there is no evidence of Ether existing. So for
action, it is in the loading - nothing else happens (has action)
without a load.

The "concept" of redistribution collapses to zero if you do not take a
measure, but it exists if you do? Logically, the causal relationship
is with the observation, not with the energy. The load reveals a
concept that does not exist without it.

What you wonder about and call a map, or territory, is a forest of
loads that give a population of varied responses that are a product of
phase differences. Mathematical "representations" of this are called
surface maps (your term of map is appropriate) or contour maps. Within
these types of representation, you can see patterns. However, the
patterns are those revealed by a multitude of loads. Take away the
loads and you would see nothing.

(Richard I do not think wathever reflects also absorbs (ideally at
last), It can reflects an transmits but nor absorb, do you agree with
it?)

No. I have measured light at the bench, and I have studied its
applications at many scales down to subwavelength dimensions. All
materials absorb light without qualification. All materials reflect
light without qualification. All materials transmit light without
qualification.

You may be tempted to tightly constrain what you call light to force
an artificial solution. Do not do it, because that serves no useful
purpose.

Consider the sun, light (a photon) from its center has to penetrate
its bulk before we see it. It takes something like 10,000 years for
that light to reach the surface. Any material you think of here on
our mud ball planet is inconsequential in comparison.

Using an optical analogy for RF is very dangerous if you cannot
measure it at the bench. Why try to understand two unknowns together?

The greatest danger of an optical analogy is in your perception (I
choose that word with care) that IF you are able to "see" it, THEN
that means that you "understand" it. Sight is an illusion (another
word chosen with care) that is most often clouded by the mind. This
topic fills books from both academic and popular writers.

In simple terms, there are optical events that you are certain you can
see, but that you cannot measure or show anyone else. There are
optical events you and others can measure, but you cannot see.

A simple (but complex one to build) example is the conjugate mirror.
It reflects light, but when you look into it, all you see is black. If
you have no experience at the bench, then what I write is a puzzle.
Although I have described why this happens, I doubt anyone remembers
or knows the answer to this contradiction.

If you want a hint, it relates ENTIRELY to your trying to tie together
RF, reflection, and other transmission/transmitter topics. Look at
the ongoing discussion on source resistance, and note the same word
conjugate's appearance in that commentary.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC