Phil Cook wrote:
> so he's *describing* refraction in terms of particles not *explaining* 
> it :-)

He explains why things work the way they do in terms of the underlying 
science.  He explains the mechanism whereby particles can refract like 
waves, which is what I thought the original question was.

It's like buying a book on how to program in C, and then complaining 
that nobody tells you why "*" is for pointers or why you need commas 
instead of spaces between the arguments to a function. Do you want to 
know how C works, or do you want to know why K&R made the decisions they 
did while designing it?  The latter is a bit more difficult when you're 
talking about fundamental physics.

> Nada at various stores looks like I'm Amazon bound.

Well worth it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message