Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: In my opinion, the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter, and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is associated with the meter readings. Spot-on, Jim. What is the technical content here? I don't see a single equation. The moral seems to be "draw no conclusions because they might be incorrect". Whatever happened to the scientific method where a premise is tested against reality? You lost it somewhere. The moral is "draw no conclusion that could be incorrect". -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reflected Energy | Antenna | |||
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | General | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy - new measurement | Antenna | |||
Cecil's Math a Blunder | Antenna |