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

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

In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do
tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God"

Of course there's at least one god. How else would you explain why my
designs work? Science, logic, modeling software, and common sense all
suggest that my antennas will never work, yet they do. I credit their
success to divine guidance and inspiration and refuse to entertain any
other explanations.

For those that believe, you're preaching to the choir.
For those that don't believe, you're wasting your time.
For those that aren't sure, a good sales pitch might work.

"FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what?

It's a hypothetical condition, where an uncharacteristic fit of
generosity causes the site owner to not charge for antenna space on
his tower. I don't think that's happened since biblical times, but
miracles are always possible.

Around here, if someone mentions ether, they're probably running a
Methylamphetamine lab.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Richard Clark wrote:
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

Richard:

Well written!

Yes, if one journeys in quest of an equation, a formula, a design
parameter, a workable solution--all are within in grasp.

If ones journeys to find "the truth", one finds himself/herself on the
path of infinity ...

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
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

The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of
Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole,
love religion, but they're not very good at it.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

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

In most of science, God is unthinkable. But then, God said he won't do
tricks for non-believers. "The fool in his heart says there is no God"

Of course there's at least one god. How else would you explain why my
designs work? Science, logic, modeling software, and common sense all
suggest that my antennas will never work, yet they do. I credit their
success to divine guidance and inspiration and refuse to entertain any
other explanations.

For those that believe, you're preaching to the choir.
For those that don't believe, you're wasting your time.
For those that aren't sure, a good sales pitch might work.

"FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what?

It's a hypothetical condition, where an uncharacteristic fit of
generosity causes the site owner to not charge for antenna space on
his tower. I don't think that's happened since biblical times, but
miracles are always possible.

Around here, if someone mentions ether, they're probably running a
Methylamphetamine lab.



If there is a god, and He makes your antennas work in spite of His
physical laws, it's only because he feels sorry for you.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:23:55 -0700, "Tom Donaly"
wrote:

The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of
Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole,
love religion, but they're not very good at it.

Hi Tom,

I think I will amend this statement to no particular affront to you. I
would say Physicists as a whole love God, they are secure enough not
to have to "prove it," and they find some unfortunate religious
zealotry as a curious mix of superstition, bigotry, and vanity. Every
scientist who marvels at his or her own limitations in the face of
discovery is in awe of creation. Everyone who wants to pigeon hole
creation into categories of truth, righteousness, and a means to
define morality have been swinging hammers on the crucifix for 2000
years.

They argue with a perverse ferocity like they can't sink that nail
deep enough.

I will return to my email with several who prefer to discuss antenna
design.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Donaly wrote:

...
The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of
Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole,
love religion, but they're not very good at it.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

The most important statement we have on the subject, from one who
claimed/claims to be God went something, like:

.... always has been, is, always will be ...

Krist, even "he" doesn't know! So, how are those other guys even going
to have a clue? LOL

Regards,
JS

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Tom Donaly wrote:

...
The god of Oppenheimer, Feynman and the others is not the god of
Sarah Palin, or even JB, whoever he is. Physicists, as a whole,
love religion, but they're not very good at it.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

The most important statement we have on the subject, from one who
claimed/claims to be God went something, like:

... always has been, is, always will be ...

Krist, even "he" doesn't know! So, how are those other guys even going to
have a clue? LOL

Regards,
JS

------------

I have no problem with acknowledging the existence of God, though I doubt
that God often takes the form of George Burns.

On the other hand, it is religion that I detest - as though God would speak
with only one man and then depend upon that man to spread His Word
accurately throughout Creation. (there - now I can remove my aluminum foil
helmet...)

Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:

...
I have no problem with acknowledging the existence of God, though I doubt
that God often takes the form of George Burns.

On the other hand, it is religion that I detest - as though God would speak
with only one man and then depend upon that man to spread His Word
accurately throughout Creation. (there - now I can remove my aluminum foil
helmet...)

Ed, NM2K

Ed:

You sound like myself. However, I was raised catholic and was too ugly
for any priest to want to molest; I was always checking out the nuns
anyway, so you can imagine how desperate I was! But then, that is all a
story for another day ... chuckle

However, like so many, I jumped on evolution as soon as I found out "it
was the intellectual thing to do." However, you know where that road
goes--pursued long enough, it is a large circle which leaves you with
the possibility of a supreme being or race (Gods and Angels? ... well,
what can I say, they'd look like "Gods" to us!) Indeed, evolution makes
one take a larger "leap of faith" than alternatives--indeed, IMHO it is
just another "religion" to replace another ... but then, that is all a
story for another day, also ...

My burning questions:

1) Did God build an ether to be exploited? (and it sure does look like it!)

2) And, if so, what type of antenna to do this would be required? (and,
firstly, is there any phenomenon occurring which would indicate an area
to explore in pursuit of this/these end(s)?)

Regards,
JS

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:33:40 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

1) Did God build an ether to be exploited? (and it sure does look like it!)

If the radio gods had meant for man to understand how such things
work, he wouldn't have made it so damn complicated.

2) And, if so, what type of antenna to do this would be required? (and,
firstly, is there any phenomenon occurring which would indicate an area
to explore in pursuit of this/these end(s)?)

Isotropic antenna. Works equally lousy in all directions for hearing
the big bang background hiss (the voice of creation). It's also
non-denominational, non-polarized, and non-existent. It can't be
seen, found, built, or purchased. Think of it as a miraculous antenna
that only the gods can appreciate and use.

As usual, man has attempted to mimic the gods by attempting to build
an isotropic radiator. It's close, but no miracle antenna.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/isotropic/index.html
Argh. The .NEC files have disappeared again. I'll fix (after I'm
done rebuilding an air compressor).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558