On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:30:47 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Hi Richard.

The example you provided earlier is not any result of exhaustive
research. It is not even an accurate thumbnail sketch of the phenomenon
at the level of "rudimentary physics books".

Hi Jim,

This is what I mean by no argument being put forth to dispute what has
been offered. In fact every computation offered flows from the math
offered by ANY academic text. I even name the math used, and then use
it. In fact, I have lead the way by offering every cogent formula
needed to discuss this matter.

I see no dispute in the assignment of indices of reflection. I see no
dispute in the computation of reflections. I see no dispute in the
balance of energy at each interface. And I am speaking of
quantitative results, not presumptions. The chain of causality is not
very long, it exhibits very obvious contradictions to the notion of
"totality," and the practical example is hardly from the sphere of the
wildly imaginative. The example is further exhibited as a practical
problem of current research.

So I disagree with your assessment.

OK, so you disagree, but that is not an argument, it is simply a
statement of prejudice.

(Perhaps you should consider having a look at the text
you're characterizing first before you presume to characterize it.)

and this is a characterization of its own.

But if by all that you mean to say that it's not possible to make a
perfect anything, then I think that ordinarily goes without saying.

What I mean has been clearly stated. Adding qualifiers on my behalf
goes outside of the discussion.

So yes, you're right.

I state nowhere that "perfect" is expected, nor do I impose that as a
condition. Can we leave these speculations outside of the discussion?

There is no such thing as a lossless medium.

This is a non-sequitur injected for no apparent reason. Why so?

But it is a rather simple matter to get a reasonably good match using
this technique.

You've gone to great lengths to extrapolate and postulate what I've
said, and yet fail to commend me for having said just this any number
of times. Why so?

I think you can assume that's about the degree of
accuracy we're using for most of our discussions.

For "Total cancellation?" If you accept that, you've spent four
years arguing for... what have you been arguing about? Have you
allowed this slack you accept in our behalf for your own positions?
However, I am used to the "debate" that proceeds along these lines
where "Totality" has been proven, accepted and it leads to nonsensical
theories like waves reflecting waves.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC