On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:38:01 -0700, Radium
wrote:

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

---
No offense but all you're really interested in is getting
unsuspecting people with good hearts to respond to your inane
trolls.

It's painfully obvious that you're not even a neophyte when it comes
to science, so your persistence in wasting everyone's time with your
foolishness indicates that you're not looking for answers, only
attention.


--
JF

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Such things are fairly important. For example, did you ever notice
that Roman Numerals do not have a zero or a null? There was a half
hearted attempt at inventing zero or null (nulla), but fortunately
that failed for many centuries. Rome survived much decadence and some
really weird Emperors without much difficulty.


There's the troubling rumour that Zero fiddled while Rome burned. It's
simply not rue.

mike

On Jun 28, 6:26 pm, m II wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Such things are fairly important. For example, did you ever notice
that Roman Numerals do not have a zero or a null? There was a half
hearted attempt at inventing zero or null (nulla), but fortunately
that failed for many centuries. Rome survived much decadence and some
really weird Emperors without much difficulty.

There's the troubling rumour that Zero fiddled while Rome burned. It's
simply not rue.

mike

On Jun 28, 2:21 pm, m II wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:
They don't know how to tie strings together?

When some of them have only one end, it becomes bothersome. thankfully
my shoelaces were spared this metaphysical ambiguity.

mike

On Jun 29, 11:03 am, clifto wrote:
Radium wrote:
Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

No.

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

No.

--
We can't possibly imprison 300 million Americans for not paying their
taxes, so let's grant all of them amnesty NOW!

the question begs..... HUH????????

Radium wrote:

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.


Thanks,

Radium

m II wrote:
There's the troubling rumour that Zero fiddled while Rome burned. It's
simply not rue.

Correct...the fiddle wasn't invented for another thousand years.

[quote Wiki]

It was said by Suetonius and Cassius Dio that Nero sang the "Sack of Ilium"
in stage costume while the city burned. However, Tacitus' account has Nero
in Antium at the time of the fire. Tacitus said that Nero playing his lyre
and singing while the city burned was only rumor. Popular legend remembers
Nero fiddling-- that is, playing the fiddle-- while Rome burned, but this
is an anachronism as the instrument had not yet been invented, and would
not be for over 1,000 years.

On Jun 30, 12:33 pm, DTC wrote:
m II wrote:
There's the troubling rumour that Zero fiddled while Rome burned. It's
simply not rue.

Correct...the fiddle wasn't invented for another thousand years.

[quote Wiki]

It was said by Suetonius and Cassius Dio that Nero sang the "Sack of Ilium"
in stage costume while the city burned. However, Tacitus' account has Nero
in Antium at the time of the fire. Tacitus said that Nero playing his lyre
and singing while the city burned was only rumor. Popular legend remembers
Nero fiddling-- that is, playing the fiddle-- while Rome burned, but this
is an anachronism as the instrument had not yet been invented, and would
not be for over 1,000 years.

"Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip


Your troll-o-meter is defective, it should be pegged hard in the red
zone.
Please have it recalibrated to a proper sensitivity.

Big laugh -- TKS

On Jul 2, 9:37 pm, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message

oups.com...

snip

Your troll-o-meter is defective, it should be pegged hard in the red
zone.
Please have it recalibrated to a proper sensitivity.

Big laugh -- TKS

troll alert, Troll Alert. TROLL ALERT !
http://www.lostinspacerobot.com/
Danger Will Robinson ! - Troll Alert . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger%2C_Will_Robinson