On Oct 7, 8:54 am, "Green Xenon [Radium]"
wrote:
Mas Plak wrote:
"Green Xenon [Radium]" wrote in message
.. .
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi:

Let's say I am in a space station which has a 2 GHz DX AM analog
receiver that receives the magnetic fields [while ignoring the electric
fields]
WRONG. it is therefore not an EM wave, and your receiver will not pick it
up.

An EM wave has an electric component and a magnetic component. The
antenna determines whether you are interacting with the electric portion
of the field or the magnetic. A shielded loop will receive the magnetic
portion of the field and ignore the electric if properly constructed.

of extremely weak 2 GHz AM analog carrier signals. In addition,
this receiver is so sensitive and powerful that it can clearly pick up
AM carrier waves as weak as 10-to-the-power-NEGATIVE-10,000
watt-per-meter-squared.
Powerful is the wrong word.

Then what is the correct word? "Sensitivity"?

What type of "selectiveity" does it have??

What do you mean by "selectivity"?

This receiver also has a robust signal processor
that can eliminate clipped-waveforms [such as square waves], spikes,
clicks, pops, hiss, and random noise
It can not eliminate random noise

How about in the mysterious too-good-to-be-true situation that it can?
Then what would happen?

I used to often play my Nintendo when it was connected to channel 3.
However, I was change the TV channel to 4. I could see the video of the
game but it was fuzzy and covered in grains. The music of the game was
absent, and instead was filled with frightening-yet-enjoyable tones
[sounding like a buzzer, lawn mower, or electric shaver] along with a
faint audio of what was being discussed on the channel 4 news.

Is there a good chance I would hear something similar on my 2 GHz AM DX
receiver in space?

Also, whenever there is drill or an actually emergency, the Emergency
Alert System [EAS] plays their music. First they play the boring
low-pitch square-wave tones. Then they play the high-pitched,
terrifying, psychedelic sine-wave tones.

Is there a good chance I would hear something similar to the second
higher-pitched set of EAS tones on my 2 GHz AM DX receiver in space?

Let me put you out of your misery,I do not know how old you are but
you unwittingly introduce a big no-no by postulating EM waves in space
and that implies a medium.

This is fine,they were faced with a dilemma in the mid19th century
inherited from Newton where they could live happily with the the Sun
influencing the Earth without a medium but could not conceive the Sun
illuminating the Earth without one.Check the top right column of the
following article from 1843 to affirm this -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425

50 years later they dumped a medium on Newton anyway as 'absolute
space' and then conveniently rejected it all over again and then you
have 100 years of relativistic junk,some hopeless cases still think it
is an achievement but they are the ones who jump in here and try to
make you look like an idiot even though it may be a fair question.

oriel36 wrote:
50 years later they dumped a medium on Newton anyway as 'absolute
space' and then conveniently rejected it all over again and then you
have 100 years of relativistic junk,some hopeless cases still think it
is an achievement but they are the ones who jump in here and try to
make you look like an idiot even though it may be a fair question.

They were only confused about the nature of the "ether".
Now we know that empty space is indeed not empty and
is something (as opposed to absolute nothing) that some
physicists describe as a "quantum soup" outside of which
EM waves cannot propagate.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Oct 7, 2:46 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
50 years later they dumped a medium on Newton anyway as 'absolute
space' and then conveniently rejected it all over again and then you
have 100 years of relativistic junk,some hopeless cases still think it
is an achievement but they are the ones who jump in here and try to
make you look like an idiot even though it may be a fair question.

They were only confused about the nature of the "ether".

Again,the guys in the mid 19th century were inheriting a dilemma
Newton created when he rejected a medium.If you really have to believe
the cobblers of the last century where Albert rejects and aether by
attaching it to Newton's 'absolute space' then be my guest,it is an
incredible work of fiction but no more .

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704 Newton

So Cecil,if you read the article again and especially the top right
column you will see the distress of people who know they are stuck in
a rut but cannot find a way out of it.In the end they dumped aether on
Isaac as 'absolute space' and so began the relativistic junk. -

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert

Unless you have a severe reading disability,you will probably notice
Newton using explict terms like "utterly rejected" in regard to aether
hence the honest of the guys in the mid 19th century.



Now we know that empty space is indeed not empty and
is something (as opposed to absolute nothing) that some
physicists describe as a "quantum soup" outside of which
EM waves cannot propagate.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Quantum soup no less !, created by the witches of Macbeth no doubt -

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble

The fiction Newton created is far more impressive than the one built
by the guys in the early 20th century but the fiction of Newton has a
very,very astrological slant and it began with the work of John
Flamsteed.I would love to fill you in with the details but you appear
content believing the guys in the mid 19th century were confused.They
were not,they were desperate.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425

oriel36 wrote:
I would love to fill you in with the details but you appear
content believing the guys in the mid 19th century were confused. They
were not,they were desperate.

Most of my information comes from, "The History of
Modern Science". In any case, "empty" space within
the universe does have some sort of quantum structure
and EM waves indeed do require that quantum medium.
That's why light cannot escape the universe.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message newsmaOi.7081

snip

Most of my information comes from, "The History of
Modern Science". In any case, "empty" space within
the universe does have some sort of quantum structure
and EM waves indeed do require that quantum medium.
That's why light cannot escape the universe.

You have some mind-bending implications the

Such a quantum structure would not be coupled to the presence of matter. It
would exist without mass.

The universe has discrete boundaries.

If EM waves reaching the boundary really do not escape and are not reflected
(???) then the boundary is absorbing them and has a theoretical impedance
of 377 ohms (same as what we innocently calculate for 'free space').

Sal M. Onella wrote:
Such a quantum structure would not be coupled to the presence of matter. It
would exist without mass.

It could be the dark energy thought to make up ~65%
of the universe and be responsible for the universal
expansion of "empty" space.

The universe has discrete boundaries.

The volume of the universe could be *unbounded* and
finite, as is the surface area of the earth.

If EM waves reaching the boundary really do not escape and are not reflected
(???) then the boundary is absorbing them and has a theoretical impedance
of 377 ohms (same as what we innocently calculate for 'free space').

One can travel forever on the finite surface of the
earth without ever reaching a boundary. Without changing
direction on the two-dimensional surface of a sphere, one
simply arrives back at one's starting point. (The East
Indies can be reached by going the opposite direction.)

One can probably travel forever within the volume of a
finite universe without ever reaching a boundary. One
might even arrive back at one's starting point while
traveling only in a "straight line".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Oct 8, 4:46 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Sal M. Onella wrote:
Such a quantum structure would not be coupled to the presence of matter. It
would exist without mass.

It could be the dark energy thought to make up ~65%
of the universe and be responsible for the universal
expansion of "empty" space.

The universe has discrete boundaries.

The volume of the universe could be *unbounded* and
finite, as is the surface area of the earth.

If EM waves reaching the boundary really do not escape and are not reflected
(???) then the boundary is absorbing them and has a theoretical impedance
of 377 ohms (same as what we innocently calculate for 'free space').

One can travel forever on the finite surface of the
earth without ever reaching a boundary. Without changing
direction on the two-dimensional surface of a sphere, one
simply arrives back at one's starting point. (The East
Indies can be reached by going the opposite direction.)

One can probably travel forever within the volume of a
finite universe without ever reaching a boundary. One
might even arrive back at one's starting point while
traveling only in a "straight line".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I once thought that anyone believing the idea that the lament of light
leaving a star going to waste,hence 'warped space',was justing kidding
and did not really believe it but I have been proven wrong on that
count ,you people are quite serious about that insanity -

"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished." Albert

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Again,I would fill you in with the details of how relativity protects
Newton but you appear content with to believe you can set out and
arrive back at the same place and indeed you can if you are an
astrologer and liv in a 'warped space' predictive zodiacal framework
-


http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

Thanks for reminding me who I am dealing with and good luck to you.

oriel36 wrote:
"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished." Albert

However, we now know that it did indeed return as background
radiation. Therefore, space is probably finite and unbounded,
i.e. warped.

Albert also had a problem with "spooky action at a distance".

Again,I would fill you in with the details of how relativity protects
Newton

Relativity also protects the believers in the ether which
remains undetected because of relativity effects on the
ether itself.

but you appear content with to believe you can set out and
arrive back at the same place and indeed you can if you are an
astrologer and liv in a 'warped space' predictive zodiacal framework

Being able to see a star behind the sun is enough proof for
me that gravity indeed warps space.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Being able to see a star behind the sun is enough proof for
me that gravity indeed warps space.

Gravitational lenses are an even more dramatic from of the same.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On 8 Oct, 18:43, Cecil Moore wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished." Albert

However, we now know that it did indeed return as background
radiation. Therefore, space is probably finite and unbounded,
i.e. warped.

Albert also had a problem with "spooky action at a distance".

Again,I would fill you in with the details of how relativity protects
Newton

Relativity also protects the believers in the ether which
remains undetected because of relativity effects on the
ether itself.

but you appear content with to believe you can set out and
arrive back at the same place and indeed you can if you are an
astrologer and liv in a 'warped space' predictive zodiacal framework

Being able to see a star behind the sun is enough proof for
me that gravity indeed warps space.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

You are very 'special' people at least those who traffic in relativity
and other such exotic junk. and I am a little surprised people have
not outgrown the excesses of the last century a lot sooner and a
little quicker when faced with the fiction but then again you are
unfamiliar with most of the srguments anyway.

SAGR." I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its
premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should
have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a
conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No
good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent
that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous."
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632 Galileo

For what it is worth,Newton created his own idiosyncratic astronomical
outlook and relativity is merely the symptoms of that late 17th
century disease,again,a very astrological one.Somehow people know that
the garbage of the last century is just that but for the present it
relies mostly on what Galileo correctly identifies as both unpleasent
and dangerous.

Good luck to you and your 'warped space' colleagues.