John Smith wrote:
This is why some are
speculating we don't have our antennas "correct" and the formulas we
design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This is why some are speculating we don't have our antennas "correct"
and the formulas we design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.

Cecil:

I am just telling you what I see suggested in his papers, lectures and
talks (not to mention a whole slew of others chiming in along the way)
.... and, of course, even Einstein himself found it, almost,
unbelievable! Indeed, he made a direct comment to this (not before me
right now, will quote it later.)

But, yes, although "the how we will do this" is much like
space/structure/ether--at this point, it requires a wee-bit of faith ...

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
This is why some are speculating we don't have our antennas "correct"
and the formulas we design them with are lacking ...

Maybe we should fire up our modulated gravity wave
and entangled particle receivers.

Cecil:

When ever I become timid, cautious and have a lack of courage in being
able to state exactly where it appears "we are being taken", or what is
possible, I think what existed before my birth and early childhood:
(indeed, I am still such a coward on these matters, I tend to stick to
what Einstein suggests!)

1) We didn't have the Maser/Laser. (Buck Rogers ray gun)

2) We hadn't been to space nor walked the Moon. (only speculated on it
in science fiction)

3) Our doctors still appeared like Witch Doctors (well, they still do, a
bit, baby steps, baby steps ...)

4) Computers were mere "toys." (a decent one would have occupied square
miles and consumed the output power of nuclear reactor)

5) The speed of sound was considered a "wall", much like the speed of
light today ...

6) [Continue this almost endless list--at will ... ]

Back then, mention any of these advances as speculations on where the
science "of the time" was about to go, you would have been laughed out
of the room--why should we expect different today? People/society just
doesn't change "that much", that quickly ...

Regards,
JS