Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
What I said was that there are commonly multiple methods to analyse
the same problem, but that all correct methods MUST agree, because
they are only different views of the same physical reality.

That attitude is certainly an improvement from the earlier
labeling of an alternate valid analysis as "Gobbledygook".

"Improvement" implies a change; but I have always held the same view as
quoted above.

It is one of the main reasons why I remain sceptical about your
theories. Where they ought to be agreeing with other analyses of the
same problem, they don't.


Also, "gobbledygook" is not a word I use... it's one of yours, I
believe.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
It is one of the main reasons why I remain sceptical about your
theories. Where they ought to be agreeing with other analyses of the
same problem, they don't.

No chance the "other analyses" could be wrong? Could you
please give me an example of what you are talking about?

Also, "gobbledygook" is not a word I use... it's one of yours, I believe.

I didn't say you used it, Ian, but you didn't object when it
was used.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp