🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3989@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes...

>>  Hi group.
>>
>>  Look - while I'm dealing with the people who think  they  know  everything
>> and  just  can't  accept the notion that messages can be transmitted faster
>> than light ,judging from my E-Mail, I know there's lots of  you  folks  who
>> want  to move on. I'm going to restate the instant communications principle
>> just one more time for those of you who missed it . Let me  also  give  you
>> the  reference  article  you  can  use  to  back this up and we'll go on to
>> something else.

> Don't you just hate it when we know-it-all graduate students insist upon
> experimental evidence and mathematical consistency before we are willing
> to consider your brilliant ideas?  It just doesn't seem fair.

> -Scott


    Mathematical consistency? I ask for your arguments to be consistent with
   I=V/r (ohms law) and am told ``ohms law doesn't apply  to  everything  in
   the world''( as if it were inappropriate to associate it with the subject
   of  electromagnetic  induction)  .  Then  I ask for I(in) to equal I(out)
   (Kirchoff's Law) in a thought experiment about two postings back and  I'm
   told  ``  Kirchhoff's 'law' is not a universal 'law of nature' '' which I
   guess means we can somehow get more electrons out of a system than we put
   in.


    Experimental evidence? Have you graduate students ever experimented with
   a Tesla coil? I doubt you even know what  one  is,  much  less  built  or
   operated  one  .   Us  engineering  technicians  (undegreed mechanics who
   actually design and build our own equipment) have  no  problem  with  the
   idea  that a transmitter is affected by it's receiver , yet it appears to
   be the subject of endless debate with you guys. If you need  a  reference
   for  this  look on page 39 of the September 91 issue of Radio Electronics
   (instructions for operating a Tesla coil):


   "Be  aware  that  any change in the physical surroundings around the coil
   will change it's resonant frequency and the tune control will need to  be
   adjusted to maintain resonance."


    Finally - whether you like it or not ,if you are responding to my  posts
   by  definition  you  are  considering  my  ideas.  Whether or not you are
   actually addressing the issues raised is something else entirely. When  I
   give  you  a  published reference (indicating that it's not really ``my''
   brilliant idea) I get back ``this is hardly Physics  Review  Letters  '',
   attempting  to  degrade someone else's work by sneering at the publisher.
   From what I can see, you're just a clique of uppity brats who do  nothing
   but exchange theoretical musings and never actually prove anything.


    If this seems a little harsh let me add that I don't really ``hate  it''
   when  confronted  with academic snobbishness. I actually enjoy destroying
   your facades.

   -snarfy (Jim Ostrowski)