Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
How about this: If you can't prove that F does not equal m*a, then I am
right about whatever issue on which we disagree!

Is that how it works, Cecil? ;-)

That's how your logic obviously works, Jim. Most of us know
that it is impossible to prove a negative except for a binary
outcome.

Please, pretty please with cream and sugar on it, provide just
one single example of a standing wave without forward-traveling
or rearward-traveling components. That is certainly not too
much to ask.

It's certainly no more than I was asking you to do.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Please, pretty please with cream and sugar on it, provide just
one single example of a standing wave without forward-traveling
or rearward-traveling components. That is certainly not too
much to ask.

It's certainly no more than I was asking you to do.

On the contrary, you asked me to prove a negative, a logical
impossibility, e.g., prove that you have never robbed a bank.
Not getting caught is NOT proof.

OTOH, all I am asking from you is one measly example out of the
multitudes of your postings in which examples have been alluded.
If I paid you $100, would you please produce such an example?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:
OTOH, all I am asking from you is one measly example out of the
multitudes of your postings in which examples have been alluded.
If I paid you $100, would you please produce such an example?

You know, you could save yourself and everyone else a lot of grief if
you would actually try to find even a single example of where I ever
said forward and reverse waves don't produce a standing wave. Why would
I say that, Cecil? Why do YOU make this claim? Why do you insist on
putting words in my mouth? It's the one thing you and I have always
agreed on - that, and interference in general. For cryin' out loud,
man. We've got some issues for sure, but that ain't one of 'em.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:41:57 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
If I paid you $100, would you please produce such an example?
Asking to prove a negative?
We've got some issues for sure, but that ain't one of 'em.
Trying to prove a negative?

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:41:57 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
If I paid you $100, would you please produce such an example?
Asking to prove a negative?
We've got some issues for sure, but that ain't one of 'em.
Trying to prove a negative?

Prove the impossible.

The deal is to replace someone's remarks with a ludicrous claim that you
invent. Then challenge that person to prove the invented claim. It's
impossible, so in a completely fabricated, fictitious and trivial sort
of way, you win! It's as if a need to win had taken precedence over
integrity.

73, ac6xg

Jim wrote,

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 11:41:57 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
If I paid you $100, would you please produce such an example?
Asking to prove a negative?
We've got some issues for sure, but that ain't one of 'em.
Trying to prove a negative?

Prove the impossible.

The deal is to replace someone's remarks with a ludicrous claim that you
invent. Then challenge that person to prove the invented claim. It's
impossible, so in a completely fabricated, fictitious and trivial sort
of way, you win! It's as if a need to win had taken precedence over
integrity.

73, ac6xg


Yep, that's one of Cecil's techniques, all right. It isn't used solely to win,
though.
It's more a means of making your opponent look ridiculous to those who haven't
been following the arguments. It's a dumb stunt that usually backfires, but,
hey!,
that's Cecil.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Jim Kelley wrote:
You know, you could save yourself and everyone else a lot of grief if
you would actually try to find even a single example of where I ever
said forward and reverse waves don't produce a standing wave.

Where did I go wrong in the following logic? You have said there is
no energy in those reverse-traveling waves. Waves cannot exist without
energy. Therefore, reflected waves don't exist. Since they don't exist,
they cannot cause standing waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Tdonaly wrote:
Yep, that's one of Cecil's techniques, all right. It isn't used solely to win,
though.

It is often the result of me confusing the postings of
two people with similar names. It is also often the result
of logical deduction. For instance: Someone says, "Reflected
waves contain no energy moving past a point." Since waves cannot
exist without energy moving past a point, we can deduce that the
person has strongly implied that reflected waves don't exist.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Where did I go wrong in the following logic? You have said there is
no energy in those reverse-traveling waves. Waves cannot exist without
energy. Therefore, reflected waves don't exist. Since they don't exist,
they cannot cause standing waves.

You went wrong in the first sentence. That statement is false. The
second sentence is an over-simplification, and is logically dependent
upon the first sentence being true. As a result the third sentence also
has a faulty premise.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Since waves cannot
exist without energy moving past a point, we can deduce that the
person has strongly implied that reflected waves don't exist.

100 watt rf generator driving an open, lossless transmission line. How
much energy do you think moves past a given point along the line every
second? 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules?

73, Jim AC6XG