On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:38:39 GMT, "JB" wrote:

In most of science, God is unthinkable.
....
"FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was
conceptual place

Two thoughts, both wrong. It takes very little investigation to
confirm their errors.

The greatest proponent of science, accuracy, and religion (thus
confounding the first quote above), Lord Kelvin, offered:
"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers.
If you think strongly enough you will be
forced by science to the belief in God,
which is the foundation of all religion.
You will find science not antagonistic
but helpful to religion."
quoted by
Rev. Professor Henslow, May 1903

Similar quotes from Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman... are legion.

Is there truly a difference for
our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in
reasonably dry air?

This appears to be set up with the word "truth" to always yield a
proof of invalidity. Any standard reference reveals the difference
and is so commonly available as to make one wonder how this question
arrived on the doorstep. Engineering deals not with truths (however
many would like to force fit that term into conversation) but with
practical implementations. Is there a practical difference for our
calculations? No, not unless you have a particular need for accuracy
and precision. Precision is often unnecessary, especially extra
digits stretching beyond the resolution of the original data supplied
to give those computational results. However, accuracy is all, but it
does not demand the nebulous qualifier (in itself a distraction) of
"truth."

You can be accurate to 1 place of resolution, or to 10. Men have been
sent to the gallows without any precision or accuracy of a measurement
and that verdict was weighed on the "truth" of the evidence. Men have
been rescued from the gallows on the basis of parts-per-million
discrepancies that proved their innocence, and "truth" was never
determined, only falsity.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC