Directionality of wire

How convenient for you to cherry pick what I wrote. I wrote recently, as I just got through saying, that obviously some components of the "energy" are outside the cable. What don’t you understand by that statement? If you had read the technical paper from the physics journal as I did you would have seen that some energy is inside the cable and some energy is outside. Which makes more sense. Besides, you seem to be supporting the naysayers in this argument. Who knows why? You said yourself that "if you hear directionality it must be real." So, if you’re so smart how about sharing with us why you think directionality is real? I’m talking of course about wire per se, not shielded wire or single ended cables, whatever? Or, as I suspect, you just want to be on the side that eventually wins, so you’re leaving yourself some wiggle room, which is that same tactic Al uses, very wisely. And your argument that radios (which are obviously wireless) prove that energy travels outside wire is ridiculous.

BS

Despite what you say, radio waves are a perfect example of what I was discussing since RF is an EM wave just like the audio is. If that EM wave is outside the wire then the energy from any other EM wave can be too, and is.

As far as being directional, I am not on either side. I did not enter the conversation to discuss that even though I did say I can see why it could be real. I entered at the request of another poster who asked me to clarify something about the transfer of energy and so called "flow of electrons." Since you were one of those spouting misinformation I got drawn into yet another of your countless worthless discussions.

I did not cherry pick... I quoted you directly. If you state three times it must be inside then say it can be outside I would say you have given yourself "wiggle room." I am not here to win anything. I am simply trying to clarify some common misconceptions. As for you, I think you probably understand more than you let on. It appears you just like to argue so you post things that you can easily twist around to suit whichever side you want to be on at the moment. Like I said, clever in a way, but ultimately tiresome. The snarky comments about other people (calling them little girls playing around) doesn’t add anything to the discussion either.

I want to retract my statement "It appears you just like to argue." You obviously love to argue as evidenced by the countless posts you make doing so. With that I again apologize for hijacking the thread and getting into another worthless debate with the master of the worthless debate.

Your only saving grace is some of the stuff you post is so absurd it is sometimes entertaining, but usually not.

Feel free to twist what I said. Like Al and Ralph who had the good sense to drop out earlier... I’m outta here!

God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. I’ve said at least twice that the energy is inside and outside the cable, even according to the technical and mathematical paper for the physics journal that was posted on this thread a couple days ago. Furthermore, the asymmetry in the copper wire is actually mostly in the outside surface of the wire. Follow? I admit I learn as I go, unlike some people. I never claimed to know everything. When you say you’re leaving again is that supposed to be promise or a threat? Finally radio communications bears so little resemblance to wire communications that it’s two separate worlds. I give you B+ on your personal attacks, C- on your physics.

See if you can spot the logical fallacy, false argument, on this thread.

AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren’t there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. "Your evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I’m right!" This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning.

ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism.[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:[3]

A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6][7] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.[8]

Forms
General
The argument from authority can take several forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[5][9]

A says P about subject matter S.
A should be trusted about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The second premise is not accepted as valid, as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.[5][10]

DISMISSAL OF EVIDENCE
The equally fallacious counter-argument from authority takes the form:[14]

B has provided evidence for position T.
A says position T is incorrect.
Therefore, B's evidence is false.
This form is fallacious as it does not actually refute the evidence given by B, merely notes that there is disagreement with it.[14] This form is especially unsound when there is no indication that A is aware of the evidence given by B.[15]