JB wrote:
... It doesn't help me with antenna performance. Go
there without me.


I can see the "spirit" you said that in, however, that statement could
not be further from the truth ... "it" (or "those" theories and
"ponderings"--space-structure/ether) is the whole reason why a signal
gets from point a to point b ...

We cannot know if there are possibly better ways to manipulate
this/these mediums, or if it is possible to design antennas "better" to
manipulate "it", until we know what "it" is ... barring "dumb luck" and
someone just "stumbles" onto some antenna which shows some improvement,
somehow.

But yes; build something from present-day data/technology, it looks as
if all this is going to take a bit before we know.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
... if all this is going to take a bit before we know.

How about a repeater that utilizes entangled photons?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
... if all this is going to take a bit before we know.

How about a repeater that utilizes entangled photons?

Cecil:

If I had not seen direct cases of where truth is stranger than fiction
.... I'd laugh. ;-)

Krist, who knows? Someone could be building one in their garage right
now! :-P

Regards,
JS

On Sep 18, 8:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I
will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not
something. This is true even in the 21st centruy.

If you chose to use colloquial English, you have to
live (or die) by fuzzy unscientific definitions. The
definition for "empty" that I have been using here is
"absolute nothing", i.e. no space and not even the
structure of space is there. I defined my use of the
word "empty" days ago. It is the same as a *literal*
interpretation of the definition from Websters's:

"empty - 1. containing nothing", i.e. literally

"empty - containing absolutely nothing including space"
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

From Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

1. Containing nothing; not holding or having anything within;
void of contents or appropriate contents; not filled; --
said of an inclosure, or a container, as a box, room,
house, etc.; as, an empty chest, room, purse, or pitcher;
an empty stomach; empty shackles.
[1913 Webster]

A. I see no induication that the word has changed since at least 1913.
I see no indication of the use of "empty" as a scientific term that
includes absence of space.

B. It is obvious from the above definition that "empty" includes the
presence of space, otherwise there would be no locus of points which
could be characterized as empty. Another way to say it is, in the
absence of space, there is nothing to be empty. Without space, the
word "empty" has no utility or purpose.

wrote:
[stuff, stuff, and a lot more stuff]

Yep, I think you are on the right path ...

To summarize Cecil:

"Yep, even the astronaut floating in space cannot empty his bucket!
And, worse than that, no one has ever even seen an empty bucket!
Speculations to what an empty bucket would look like should be able to
be done, however."

If you are out there, Cecil, feel free to correct me ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Sep 18, 6:47*pm, wrote:
On Sep 18, 8:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:



wrote:
Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I
will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not
something. This is true even in the 21st centruy.

If you chose to use colloquial English, you have to
live (or die) by fuzzy unscientific definitions. The
definition for "empty" that I have been using here is
"absolute nothing", i.e. no space and not even the
structure of space is there. I defined my use of the
word "empty" days ago. It is the same as a *literal*
interpretation of the definition from Websters's:

"empty - 1. containing nothing", i.e. literally

"empty - containing absolutely nothing including space"
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

From Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

*1. Containing nothing; not holding or having anything within;
* * * * void of contents or appropriate contents; not filled; --
* * * * said of an inclosure, or a container, as a box, room,
* * * * house, etc.; as, an empty chest, room, purse, or pitcher;
* * * * an empty stomach; empty shackles.
* * * * [1913 Webster]

A. I see no induication that the word has changed since at least 1913.
I see no indication of the use of "empty" as a scientific term that
includes absence of space.

B. It is obvious from the above definition that "empty" includes the
presence of space, otherwise there would be no locus of points which
could be characterized as empty. Another way to say it is, in the
absence of space, there is nothing to be empty. Without space, the
word "empty" has no utility or purpose.

in 1913 the study of particles was not linked to the four forces of
the standard model
It hasn,t hit the books because there is no series of references that
can be included.
No book no need for a revised dictionary no need for change
Re
obvious.. a word used when supporting logic is not readily available
Art
Art

wrote:
[ ... ]

You simply take up too much effort on a very small point. Read this:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm

If that doesn't do it for you, or whets your appetite, try this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_24EAAAACAAJ&dq=ether

Regards,
JS

wrote:
[ ... ]

How about a 1894, download-able .pdf "book?":

http://books.google.com/books?id=_rU...her #PPP10,M1

(Look in the top right hand corner for the download link ... I include
this particular book for historical reasons. ;-) )

Regards,
JS

Art Unwin wrote:

in 1913 the study of particles was not linked to the four forces of
the standard model
It hasn,t hit the books because there is no series of references that
can be included.

Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in 1905.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
And with that you feel that you can claim to know what space 'is'.

Sorry, I never claimed to know what space is,

Ah, but you did pretend to.

73, ac6xg