Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
rearward-traveling momentum energy in those two waves is conserved by
changing direction to become part of a forward-traveling wave.

Yeeesh. You had it on, dog, up until that. And don't try to tell me
(again) that I'm lying that you said it.

(Remember when you wrote this? "If reflected energy makes its way back
into the final amp, it was never generated in the first place, by
definition." Hint: apply the same idea to your "rearward-traveling
momentum" and you'll have it.)

Egads Jim, exactly how much of reality do you think I am capable of
ignoring?

You're evidently capable of ignoring at least some, Cecil.

I *don't* agree with that definition above and your implication that
momentum and energy don't need to be conserved is simply metaphysics
in action.

We both know that momentum and energy must be conserved. We just
disagree agree on how nature chooses to do that. And, because of that
disagreement, I'm forced to endure your beligerant rhetoric.

73, Jim AC6XG