Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Of course, you are talking about *NET* energy above.

Right. There isn't another kind.

That goofy assertion doesn't even merit a response.



Following your logic, two people shooting at each
other with identical bullets can do no harm because
the net energy is zero. Care to prove your theory?

How many sources ya got in that example, Cecil? Is that the same to
you? If it is, then I can see why you don't understand.

73, Jim AC6XG
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Following your logic, two people shooting at each
other with identical bullets can do no harm because
the net energy is zero. Care to prove your theory?

How many sources ya got in that example, Cecil? Is that the same to
you? If it is, then I can see why you don't understand.

Couldn't possibly be that you don't understant, huh?

Someone has shot a bullet into an iron wash pot. It ran around
the rim of the pot and changed directions by 180 degrees. Just
as it was changing directions, another bullet was fired from
the same gun. The returning bullet has less energy than the
second bullet. Therefore, the net energy is away from the gun.
Want to stick your head in front of the ricochet bullet
to prove that component energy doesn't matter?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Following your logic, two people shooting at each
other with identical bullets can do no harm because
the net energy is zero. Care to prove your theory?

How many sources ya got in that example, Cecil? Is that the same to
you? If it is, then I can see why you don't understand.

Couldn't possibly be that you don't understant, huh?

Bullets and radio waves? No. Matter behaves differently than do
electromagnetic waves. I'm quite confident about that.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Bullets and radio waves? No. Matter behaves differently than do
electromagnetic waves. I'm quite confident about that.

So what? Some matter behaves differently from other matter. Hint: Jim,
here's a heads-up for you. You must be omnipotent in order to prove that
you are omniscient. I hope you are up to that task.

My challenge still stands. Please provide a standing wave without a
forward-traveling wave and a rearward-traveling wave. If you can't,
at least send me a joint of whatever you are smokin'.
--
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:
You must be omnipotent in order to prove that
you are omniscient. I hope you are up to that task.

I'll try and remember that. 8-|

My challenge still stands. Please provide a standing wave without a
forward-traveling wave and a rearward-traveling wave. If you can't,
at least send me a joint of whatever you are smokin'.

Wow. Maybe I need to issue a "challenge".

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? ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

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.
--
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:

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