WHR

Cap'n I would concede that probably most scientist at the highest levels of achievement who have managed their way to "the top", at least in the field of physics where most wouldn't deny that a little imagination and thought experiment are part of the process, are probably a lot more humble than the average joe physics professor at Smallville University somewhere in a Midwestern town (fictitious). Perhaps this is because the over achievers are in the spotlight and have already proven themselves, so they don't have to take everything so seriously. I would have to say that I've met many a graduate student in one of the more controversial or contested fields (evolutionary biology, psychology, theoretical physics) at taverns and bars with a little spirits in them, and they often will provoke debates about religion and God the more they drink. It as if an internal conflict arises with the inhibition lowered, but it becomes unleashed as an indictment. Perhaps the flaw of scientific method isn't in the method but in the average person who uses it. Humans with serious flaws, internal conflicts. I know the reply is that peer review siphons out the Bias. I don't believe that. If a significant percentage of the Peers also share the affliction. My ex wife is a psychology professor. I knew her as a graduate student and knew many of her friends and professors. I witnessed several professors engaging in intercourse with students at parties and using drugs. I was younger and less inclined to shock back then. Point being, a common thread that I often found was that the majority of these students and professors seemed to have internal conflict resolution issues. This seemed to be what drew them to psychology. And these are the people who counsel people out in the "real world" and are paid handsomely to do so. Of course they don't have to disclose to their patient that they partied with professors and smoked dope and complained about sibling rivalry issues that led to low self esteem when under the influence (as an example). They just frame their degree and license on the wall and do what they were trained to do. Is it plausible that the average psychologist doesn't have a degree of bias in his methods? Is it plausible that after seeing certain things From others over the years, that they do not strengthen their biases? Perhaps some lose them!! But I think that would be the exception rather than rule. I believe that most fields of science related to understanding personal beliefs and biases (how we came to be, the universe, our minds and how we think) suffer from this. In the other two sciences of biology and physics, I tend to see more atheism, or worse, antitheism. I often wonder what came first? The rejection of religion to pursue science, or the pursuit of science that convinces one to reject religion. I think that both can work together toward shaping us. But I think we determine our faith or lack of at an early age and work toward confirming this as we mature. I feel more liberated by rejecting both, or rather not favoring either and being critical of both. I think I have a more unbiased perspective. IMHO

Lol, too late. Im a chemist. But I don't do experiments. I test known variables. Nobody said anything was on principle wrong with saying something is a failure, an experiment or a new cell phone design. Failure is the gateway to success. But when discussing lofty topics like "is there a God or not. Does the universe have a beginning or not. Is it infinite in dimension or finite...Such and such is occurring beyond the observable universe but we cant see it"..Etc etc...and when someone dares pipe up and point out the absurdity in our ability to ascertain such things. That doesn't warrant failure as a term. It certainly doesn't warrant failure if the "judge" is biased toward the initial assertions. Or if he dismisses them before the discussion has a chance to begin. Someone claimed that I obviously have no knowledge of how the big bang works or how cosmological expansion works. I contend that nobody has any knowledge of how it works. I contend that what we say today about how it works will be in conflict with what we will be saying in 30 years. I contend this is not all that different than going out and buying a blue ray disc player. They are already doomed to obsolescence very soon as people are moving to streaming and direct downloading to large hard drives instead of disc collections. So why buy a blue ray player? Why buy into a texhnogy that already has an end built in? Why buy into theories that are flawed (yes I use the word) on their very principles. Theories about expansion that require fudge factors and speculations about what's happening beyond our reach. Theories that declare the furthest light that we can see, the further light that there is. I can't blindly accept these ideas, and if I do, I must ask other questions. But when I do, I'm accused of ignorance. Not being ignorant, in effect, requires memorization of the latest theory. It requires reading the latest article that is mainstream, accepting it, then commiting that new info to memory as support for the old info. But wait, somebody comes along and makes a contradictory observation. I see a bunch of people holding their breath til they are blue, waiting for the Oracles of truth to cast their judgement. That's what I see with modern physics.

Btw, I will note that this thread is in the philosophy section. I started it here for obvious reasons philosophy is not really a point-counterpoint kind of arena of thought...though debate is certainly part of the process. Philosophy allows for differing world views and can be rigid or fluid, depending on the philosophy or philosopher. I am not religious. I am not a theist. I am not a deist. I'm not spiritual. I'm also not antitheist or atheist. I'm not a secular humanist. I am not liberal or conservative or libertarian. I'm not socialist or capitalist. I do not need a label or a predescribed formula of thought. I do not discount that any one of these various ideologies or cherry picked bits and pieces can guide one on a perfectly happy and productive path. I will call my world view don't-give-a-rats-butt-eist. It might fall under agnostic but I think even agnostic denotes a wannabe atheist or a wannabe theist who is taking the safe way out... I do love a spirited debate. I don't care for one where insults or condescension play a roll. I have found that science related websites tend to operate in that sphere. Religious zealot websites do as well. That is why I reject both as cultish. I do not outright reject religion as a whole nor science as a whole, just the cultish principles. It is justified to recognize that religion carried mankind through tens of thousands of years of existence and science has done well with the last few hundred. Science is not supposed to be a dogma and have any relationship to religion but imfortunaty that is an impossible burden on science. As science acts to continually convince people of the flaws of religion (which are many) it must take up the burden that the void of religion bestows upon it. This includes moralities and ethics, law, philosophy, the list is endless. Most scientist do not wish to accept this burden, most are not qualified to be authorities on such matters. Yet we call on scientists to help convict murderers or acquit them. We call on science to make judgments on sexual feelings and help guide the legal expression of them. We call on science to be the referee on ever increasing issues of right and wrong. This used to be the domain of religion. This is the void that casting it out creates. Science is not an adequate tool for that purpose AT ALL. One can argue that neither is religion. Therefore, I rely on self for all of it. Everything from figuring out how the universe started (it started when my dads sperm combined with my mothers egg by the way) to figuring out if smoking dope is really bad. Those are all at my liberty to judge, without an adequate void filler that I can universally accept. This is why I really do not care about any judgements about ideas I may devise. Nor do I care if someone wants to insult me for not accepting the conventional wisdom. I acknowledge that science has come up with a lot of answers to a lot of questions. But I also recognize that it is incapable of answering many...and if it is incapable of answering JUST ONE question, if that question is of great enough importance, then it is inadequate.

Mr Cutter at this point any compromise is welcome, because I know that trying to hash out solid state theory will only lead to ten more pages of bantering. Active devices are just as predictable as passive ones but their operation is contingent upon current in the case of BJT and voltage in the case of vacuum tubes and MOS/CMOS. Just an entire can of worms where points can be made in both cases. But I will accept the compromise because arguing for the sake of arguing is not productive. I do believe in hard science.

I've seen religious writings that use such language. I'm becoming ever more convinced of dogmatic thinking.

you know that replying to a thread that's premise is that the scientific method is flawed with such a statement isn't how it is likely to endear someone. So when I toss out the whole status quo ideas about cosmology as rubbish with no merit, what am I exercising? Oh I can already predict someone's answer..."ignorance"...ding ding we have an answer. Phooey. I'm exercising the brain that I was entrusted with. You know, ever since the beginning of mankind, the entire human species, every individual, has looked up in amazement at the splendor of the night sky. Our earliest ancestors would draw and carve depictions on caves of what they saw and their feeble explanations (no more feeble than ours but feeble nonetheless)...they did not have a meritocracy of blue ribbon wearing judges vandalizing the cave art and "correcting it" with the status quo. That came much later with Christianity (which wasn't a democracy but rather a meritocracy based on if it wasn't in the bible it didn't have merit). So ultimately, the meritocracy is where human weakness takes over. Not hunt for truth but hunt for merit based on contemporary wisdom. That's it!!!! Makes it no different than the inquisition. If you are blind to that reality I feel for you. Anyway I would have prefered the caveman days before it was decided that something had to seek an approval system before one could speak it. And before purveyors of wisdom decided that they had a monopoly on man's greatest aspiration.

Ok let me be clear on something. Not asking for clarification, clear on what I am insisting. Let's say for arguments sake that the universe is certainly expanding, and that it is accelerating. This would have it that outside of the observable universe there are galaxies and clusters, but they have accelerated past the "event horizon". Now it just so happens that this event horizon is also where we date the age of the universe because that's the oldest visible light (adding a few million years or a billion, whatever, to account for photon formation per the theory.) You have two causal factors for not being able to see past the event horizon. Light has redshifted beyond visibility, in fact out of the electromagnetic spectrum altogether. Meaning light waves are in limbo between the mass that produced it and ours. The ultimate long wave. The other causal factor is that IT JUST SO HAPPENS that the universe is too young to have made light older than the observable universe anyway. The edge or event horizon is not only this threshold of expansion, a barrier. It is also the marker for "the beginning". One or the other has to be phooey. We are clinging to the big bang because we want/need a start point. If the start point is not a where, it has to be a when. I've yet to read or hear anyone claim that nothing really exists beyond the End of the observable point or the "event horizon" of our little nook. That the unknown universe might in fact be infinite. I think this is what scares people or what people can't wrap their minds around. If we accept the inflation/expansion concept, with acceleration, then eventually all of the mass in our little nook will be stretched out beyond the horizon as the outside galaxies get tugged beyond it. Eventually everything close to us will be so stretched with gaps inbetween so vast that we'll barely have a few points of light in the sky. (old Sol will be supernova long before then though). But it is obvious that this is just a puzzle, a meaningless puzzle. We are trying to imagine what all of this looks like from our observation point. But if you could back up and take a few billion paces back and look at everything from a different vantage point, further back, all of those masses and superclusters would look like they were rewinding and pushinh back together. The space inbetween would shrink. The whole thing would look like it is in rewind. The further outside of our precinct you went. We are hung up on LIGHT. Einstein made us all obsessive compulsive about it. That's only because we are biological creatures and light is what we see. So what if the lights all shut off. We are the only critters in the universe that care about being able to see it LOL. The superclusters are not worrying about being able to see their neighbors. If you have ever studied fractal geometry this makes perfect sense. You keep backing up and seeing the same pattern emerge, back up further still and it keeps on popping out, focus on the micro and you keep seeing the geometry spiraling to infinity. That's what the expanding universe would just keep doing with or without photons. And it will keep on and on and on. But likewise,the logic of my mind rules out a beginning. What we think was the beginning was just an infantesimal version of the present. Light need not be part of it, once you forget that light is a speed barrier and anything to be concerned with accept to read your book by. I tell you where the problem lays. It's not with Geocentricism. It's we Egocentricism as a species. (amazing geo and ego happen to have the same 3 letters). We think of the universe as a show for us to figure out and understand. when the reality is that the universe just IS and doesn't care if it is understood or not. I'll buy the accelerating expanding universe but I don't buy the big bang with it. I can imagine the inflation being an infinite process through time in both directions.

You know everything AGC52. Thanks. It must be cool to have achieved omnipotence. Please don't hurt me.

And you have demonstrated that you already know everything.

Point taken Tar, and thanks for the kind words!!! but if you have the same view as String Junky, then it would seem none of us have the aptitude to actually be the judge of an idea. We need to wait around for the guy with the "hi my name is Joe astrophysicist" name tag to pop in the discussion and set us all straight. I'm sorry, I do not live my life following any person, organization, institution, dogma, religion, authority whatsoever by a leash. And one thing you would be incorrect about is also my patriotism. I reside in the US, but I do not have one ounce of faith in the state of our culture, our government, our economy, or our future. I can't say any better for any other country so I take solace in not living in abject poverty. And that, as a matter of fact, well Actually personal opinion, is the only true reason people feel anything other than remorse today for a country that has lost its way.

So you are saying you are too stupid to figure it out and will listen to the masters... I think that's what the illiterates said when the pope was reading the Latin bible and telling them what it said. Oops I broke a personal rule about making religious analogies but that one sure had bait on it.

That is an impossible assumption. Absolutely 100% impossible, unless you have a broadband connection that utilizes relativity and are sending emails to an alien at BLIP 999 supercluster (fictitious) and he has reported to you the redshifts from his vantage point, then that is an assumption that makes the whole house of cards fall. You are basing that assumption on the balloon or rubber band model. The idea that if 4 people grab the corners of an elastic sheet and pull, that the middle point will stay stationary, near center points will expand only a little, and the elastic around the edges near the tugging will move very fast. Complete phooey. Phooey because there has to be some kind of anchor point. If two observers were identified within our imagined elastic sheet, one positioned in the middle, the other positioned halfway to the edge...the one halfway to the edge would see a lopsided acceleration distribution. Oh buy I forgot, from his vantage point he is the center of his own elastic sheet. But he can't be both. Not unless his location and our location are both anchored by 1) a physical anchor that holds the two positions steady, not necvessarily fixed but at a steady rate with respect to each other and 2) have equal forces tugging from all points outward. It is not philosophical differences that force me to reject this. It's the "wow this looks really cool when you look at that animation" factor. It's the stone cold reality that we haven't asked the guy a couple of million parsecs away what he sees. We are making it up because it sounds really good. I know you will rebutt that the redshifts are the compelling evidence. There is another explanation for the redshifts, we will just have to wait 30 years when the new textbooks are printed to know what it will turn out to be. Everything else is phooey. Star Trek stuff. I can accept a big bang, but I can't accept the universes's constituents moving faster than the speed of light only in relation to the vantage point. so if the andromeda galaxy just so happened to instantaneously accelerate to light speed moving away from us, we wouldn't see it? Wouldn't that take a few million years, like longer than we'll be around to prove?

Please explain. Did you look at the redshifts and the distances??????? Please do so without personal attack To contradict the data without a point is just an insult.

Wow. Here is a FASCINATING website: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/2billion.html It is a map of the identified superclusters out to 2 billion light years. I noticed, by picking about 30 random superclusters, all but a few of the most distant (on the outskirts with our local supercluster being central) fall on redshift scale on the most extreme end (up to .225) the neighboring superclusters with few exceptions are redshifted at the bottom end. (.014)....it is my understanding that a redshift of 1 would indicate light speed. So out to 2 billion light years, we have detected no supercluster in the hundreds (or thousands depending on the criteria) that is moving faster than 1/4 the speed of light away from our location. The "super warp" superclusters begin where?? Is a pattern emerging with the raw data? This is pretty black and white stuff if you care to question things. The distribution of warp speed superclusters should be a random pattern. Even within 2 billion light years that pattern should emerge. It should NOT be dependent of the observation point. This truly IS a geocentric view of the universe. Actually there are dozens of revisions of the bible that try to fit it into modern language. I would prefer that religion not be crossed into a scientific topic. I am not on this site to discuss religion. I would contend that the hate of religion is why most people who ravenously defend science do so. To truly free your mind and be objective, you can't have a predisposition to even think about religion, discuss it, let it poison your thought at ALL about science. They are two completely different things, or should be. Unfortunately for many however, science is the void filler in absence of religion. This is a philosophical point and off topic but I'm replying to the statement...but you really have to put religion in a box and forget about it to liberate your mind and not accept science at face value. Otherwise is to have an inversely proportional viewpoint. For every measure of lack of faith in religion, a proportional amount of faith lended to the infallibility of science. That is not a healthy thing. Distrust in one should not reinforce the other. But that is not what is evident in human nature. The most vitriolic atheist is the champion of science. The most devout of religious persons is more than typically the most superstitious against science. An agnostic such as myself is liberated and can view science with as critical an eye as religion.

I am flabbergasted at how well written and well thought out this post is, coming from a 15 year old. Particularly your last sentence. That is the most poignant sentence that has probably been "spoken" in this forum. You are wiser than many men 3X your age a little joke there if you get it. You are as informed an opinion as anyone, simply because you ARE and because you THINK and because you are confined to the same limitations that we all have..mainly being human. If complementing a 15 year old is an off topic comment and subject to punishment, so be it.

OK I can't help myself. Where are all the really fast accelerating galaxies located? Logic would dictate that there has to be a few within just a few hundred million light years of the milky way that have broken the light speed barrier. They should be evenly distributed all over the place. But all the articles I read talk about having to use gravitational lensing to see "distant faint galaxies" to detect the ones that are accelerating that fast or have already broken light speed. None of our neighbors have the pep to do it? Again, based on what I've read on the Internet (which is where I get my info because I don't work at a university observatory) it sounds like we are looking at the edge of the observable universe to find the light speed breakers. Centering everything on our observation point. Is the Milky Way breaking light speed? In fact, isn't it pretty important to establish a reference point? Even if I'm talking about two trains moving away from each other at X speed....I add the speeds together to come up with the effective speed. I'll compare that to heat index vs temperature. The other train would appear to be moving twice as fast as it is in reference to the Milky Way Express. But I have to know how fast the Milky Way Express is going to know anything meaningful. And that's the one train we can't measure from another perspective. Hmmm. Please explain to me then how the confidence interval was so great 30 years ago when I was in school that we were taught that the universe was expanding but at a decaying rate. We learned about the Big Crunch theory. THEORY, and it was as far as i remember textbook stuff...mainstream. Nobody said anything about dark matter or energy or accelerated expansion. That was taught as knowledge 30 years ago. I was also taught that blue was blue and Hitler was a really bad guy. Are these concepts subject to revision? You can throw all kinds of links and mumbo jumbo at me, but I have a 95% confidence interval that students 30 years from now will be learning something completely different. That isn't knowledge. Knowledge is absolute in every other sphere of influence.

Ha. The age of the Internet. I take back my idea that people using the Internet together can answer the burning questions. People are too arrogant when not in a room together. But we sure can play a mean game of Worlds of Warcraft. My last post in this forum. Drones.

Nope. I take the Stance that on one side we say that there is no absolute knowledge, that knowledge is amendable when new observations warrant, but yet we still call it knowledge and argue that we know. Call people who don't think they know ignorant because they haven't unquestionably accepted the current version of "know". We either know or don't know. Either the galaxies at the edge of the observable universe are moving faster than the speed of light or they aren't. Consensus does not make galaxies move at a certain speed. Some phenomenon of nature does. If we can't see a galaxy, it MAY be explained by the galaxy moving at faster than light speed, or it MAY be simply that past a certain point in the universe, we can't detect enough photons to resolve a mass. Perhaps no telescope can possibly be built to resolve a mass above the "ambient visible noise floor" when it exits beyond point X. I would also assert that we are walking on territory of circular logic. We claim the universe is a certain age because of X observation... then we say X obseration occurs or is because the universe is a certain age. We use one observation to confirm itself so to speak. I love astrophysics, have always lived cosmology. I am the first to point to the Sky when I see Jupiter and Venus and the moon all very close together as they were just a few months ago. I think we CAN find answers to questions. I just challenge these assumptions. I challenge them at my core because we are starting to poke out as far as our stick will let us poke, but we just can't accept that the answer may be beyond reach, so now we dream and create nonsensical stuff that helps with the math (dark matter and energy) and say it over and over and over again until everyone knows The words to the song. In fact ... To edit this, I think when we start stepping outside of what we can't even see, as in several BILLION LIGHT YEARS AWAY (mind staggering unfathomable distances) and make assertions about what is happening at that distance, we are walking on paper thin ice. One might say that quantum physics is as difficult to determine. I would say no. An atom and it's constituents that is within my reach, however small, seems a billion times easier to comprehend than something that can't even be detected. At least the LHC has detectors that supposedly can resolve what they are looking for. I think there isn't enough combined brainpower and computing memory on planet earth to really comprehend the distances we are talking about.

I guess ACUV that it kind of comes down to the difference between a science and engineering perspective based on mathematics and theory, or a practical perspective, based on the soldering iron, the test point, the smoking transistor that just got overloaded, the fuse that blew. A machine is both it's physical parts and the principals that allow it to function. To be a good engineer or bench technician, I think you have to see things from both sides. It is hard to work in the practical world without seeing the physical component called a resistor and just simply saying "it has resistance" and confirming the value written on it against a test circuit. It defies common sense to think that the resistor *won't* behave as predicted or marketed or labeled or whatever barring a defect. But that is in itself misleading. If a resistor is frozen to near absolute zero or heated to its maximum operating temp, it will show the limitations of physical characteristics. But if everything is defined mathematically (assuming room temperature or 0 degrees C as the reference point) then all should be in tolerance and happy joy joy. The platinum 100 ohm scale resistance temperature device is a perfect candidate for such a model. It is DESIGNED to be variable with temperature. Resistance value increases as temp increases and vice versa. But the thing that is universal and unchanging (barring defect or operation outside of spec) is the meter that is measuring the transducer, it's stable calibration, and it's reference voltage. Thus, to reliably measure resistance we need a reliable voltage source and a current (albeit the current can be very very small so as to not damage components).

I thought that your assertion Tar was that in his thesis that the big bag occurred outside of the universe. Clearly if the universe has been expanding like a loaf of raisin bread, as scientists say, then the initial mass of "dough" would have necessarily been located within the larger body that the universe has stretched to become??? I also will tell a cute story that counters the appeal to authority argument about more trained peeps knowing more than the unwashed masses. My ex wife used to tell a funny story about her mom and dad, who were both experimental aircraft pilots since she was young. One day they were taxiing the runway and she made an observation and said "daddy". He said not now Honey we are taking off. She said "mommy". Her mother told her to hush, she was talkin to the control tower. She implored "mommy daddy!!!" and the both turned around and screamed "hush not now!!!"...she started to cry and said "but mommy and daddy the airplane is on fire". That is a true story that I didn't make up. She was 4 years old and they were in their 30s (pilots and parents...authorities on both counts). Problem is, it took a lot of effort to get their attention. Something to think about. Btw tar, I take back my appreciation for the politeness from your early reply. I would never tell someone their idea was worthless. Even if i deemed that it was, I'd never be so bold as to call anyone else's thought was ******worthless****** That should not be in the language of science. I am going to take offense to this language, because it is offensive. It shuts me out of dialogue. It tells me I can't be in the big boy club or bring my toys to the sandbox. It's no wonder that so many in the public are becoming distrustful of science...much as they distrusted the church during the Inquisition or on the cusp of Galilieo and Copernicus. This only supports my initial assertion. Not because an alternative idea is not agreed upon, but because it is met with such arrogance and hostility and single mindedness.

Actually this whole assertion is quite interesting to me. I've never actually read it declared that the edge of the observable universe was a consequence of something other than the lack of our ability to observe it. It has puzzled me that we have made declarations about what is going on past what we don't see. I had assumed our lack of seeing it was attributed to technology. I had never dreamed it was based on complete lack of observational evidence or that we had seen all there is to see already!!! Honestly, with understanding a little bit about EM, my assumption has always been that the inverse square law eventually makes something vastly distant so dim that it becomes undetectable by current technology at some point. I had assumed that the uniformity in all directions of the observable universe was a function of such a reality. That the next bigger telescope will always add a few million light years of distance (at least) to what we could see. If this is true, what value is there in investments in bigger telescopes? Editing to add this. I truly believe, from the depths of my heart, that Einsteins intellect and creative thought are so intimidating to us, so revered, that nobody has the guts to really call into question how it would be that entire galaxies can "apparently" break the light speed barrier. I think he himself would question this. I don't recall him making exceptions. I don't know who came up with a way to make an exception and still claim it falls within the fundamental principles of GR. hmmm

I only cited one page I'd I remember but it pretty clearly testifies to my assertions. Even a small transformer inside a device is enough to generate EMI. The rest is about semantics regarding resistance as a word. It is impossible to cite a website that goes into distinguishing between the mathematics and the verbiage. It's not an argument that I'm accustomed to. But none of the sites you linked to make that distinction either. For instance the Johnson-Nyquist link. I also have a chemistry background. I could go into detail about gas chromatography and how compounds are seperated and analyzed...I could also describe how many other accurate things can be infered from that analysis. We could infer the solid point, flash point etc of a chemical compound from its constituents and their volumes. However we aren't actually measuring those phenomenon and it is often inadequate to do so from inferences when precision and accuracy are required. But again I'm going to defer the debate and agree to disagree. Haha ACUV thanks for the comment. I am sincerely not looking for a trophy. I just strongly believe in emphasis on the mathematics because deeper understanding lies in that area. Until my studies got deep into the mathematics, I was very lost and couldn't see many other things. Since I didn't properly quote you earlier ACUV, I reckon I should you actually touched on part of the issue that confronts circuit design or repair. Many components may have an initial resistance VALUE as intended in a circuit, but interacting with the other aspects (voltage and current) as well as the changes in demand of a load, threshold voltages, breakdown voltages, dielectric effects, coupling and isolation, etc etc etc (very long laundry list of considerations) all of these things can cause an initial resistance to become DYNAMIC. However I will not create a term, I think this just needs to be recognized. I did manage to get my simple dvm experiment photos uploaded

Editing to add that I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree with you on this topic. It clearly is a circular argument. I come from the standpoint that resistance is not something I can store in a jar, then go pick up an empty component, open some little compartment, and pour resistance in. I can certainly fabricate a resistor that will have a predictable resistance in a circuit. But outside of the circuit, this is meaningless. Outside of e meter circuit (which is just another active circuit) it is meaningless. But it is clear that we both have a strong background in electronics theory. Even if our interpretations of that theory are not exactly the same. Perhaps it is a philosophical point and it's very hard to debate those. Two may not be many, but I do not think it is clear that you have refuted any of my statements either. But I'm not arguing to be petty. I think some fundamental aspects of electronics slip if someone doesn't solidly understand the mathematics behind it. Down to the atomic level. For instance many people think that current is little electrons moving down the wire, when in actuality it is the AVERAGE of electrons and the difference between the ones that happen to not move at all or move in the opposite direction. And that the electrons do not actually flow, they effectively push the existing electrons in the conductor. And some bounce back and go the other way. It's the net movement that is measured.

Impedance is reactance plus resistance of a component. Yes impedance creates heat. Period. Ideal reactance would theoretically not add heat. (aka loss). Impedance necessarily does...and as was pointed out, impedance Isn't just "there" in a reactive component. The circuit must be energized for it to occur. We are treating resistance like it is a thing and not an electrical function. "the resistor has resistance" like the "the wheel has turn". Wheels turn, resistors resist. LOL!! You most certainly did not refute the part about the transformer. That's like saying if I draw a black dot, then draw a bigger black dot over it, the original black dot isn't there. I stated that all of these things can be picked up by even a simple device such as an AM diode receiver. I could take any one away and see the other. They contribute to the noise floor. It's like harmonics. Just because a square wave is a square wave, that doesn't mean you ignore the harmonics that it creates. This all goes back to the original problem with the DVM and you specifically claiming that no sensor could detect the field of a transformer, which is clearly wrong.

I've posed many questions and made many assertions that haven't been refuted or answered.