James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of the > strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid: > > That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation > wavelengths observed. > You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily. You might also address the fact that the first device melted. - Jed
