John Smith wrote:
You have given idiot new meaning; you have take in word idiot to new
heights, and you have not stopped there. There has yet to be a name
given to the gobble-de-gook you spew.

e.g.
1. Transmission line currents are common-mode.
2. Richard Feynman was not a quantum physicist.
3. Ether is not required for propagation of light waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
You have given idiot new meaning; you have take in word idiot to new
heights, and you have not stopped there. There has yet to be a name
given to the gobble-de-gook you spew.

e.g.
1. Transmission line currents are common-mode.
2. Richard Feynman was not a quantum physicist.
3. Ether is not required for propagation of light waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

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

All of this chatter is really a contest to see who will lose their self
control and scream, "IT'S AETHER, DAMN IT - NOT ETHER!!!".

But I'm not gonna fall for that. Nosiree!!! G


Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:
All of this chatter is really a contest to see who will lose their self
control and scream, "IT'S AETHER, DAMN IT - NOT ETHER!!!".

Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

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"

I can't conceive of God being a medium, but perhaps he is all that and much
more. There is no "nothingness" Philosophically. Only degrees of scarcity
of something that we perceive or expect to be there. Space is predominantly
empty of matter but there is some from time to time. Perhaps the stars,
planets and other phenomenon are there to keep the space clean. We don't
fully know what we don't perceive (damn little enough what we DO perceive) .
"Ether" is a supposed medium that facilitates an operational paradigm.

Bottom line is: Not all things must be theoretically proven to be
practically utilized. The fact that a theory is practically utilized in a
given application, does not infer that theory is infallible. For instance,
in the application that at any given instant we are oriented with respect to
the tangent of the Earth's surface. So that for the case that we are
instantaneously at one point on the Earth, it doesn't matter if the Earth is
flat, round, oblong or Spherical, even though it has been proven otherwise.
Likewise, to think that an experiment that uses a particular theory and is
successful will fully prove that theory over another yet to come is foolish.

So, conclusions based on application of far reaching theories should be held
at arms length that we might maintain our objectivity. After all, Einstein
and Newton both died before they could achieve a unified theory of the
universe. Nor do I expect those still living will either. For now, none of
them have been proved infallible.

"FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was
conceptual place so an antenna with a known potential at it's terminals
could be evaluated without ground effects. Is there truly a difference for
our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in
reasonably dry air?

Einstein called it "ether" and who am I to argue?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
"According to the general theory of relativity,
space without ether is unthinkable." Albert Einstein

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"

I can't conceive of God being a medium, but perhaps he is all that and much
more. There is no "nothingness" Philosophically. Only degrees of scarcity
of something that we perceive or expect to be there. Space is predominantly
empty of matter but there is some from time to time. Perhaps the stars,
planets and other phenomenon are there to keep the space clean. We don't
fully know what we don't perceive (damn little enough what we DO perceive) .
"Ether" is a supposed medium that facilitates an operational paradigm.

Bottom line is: Not all things must be theoretically proven to be
practically utilized. The fact that a theory is practically utilized in a
given application, does not infer that theory is infallible. For instance,
in the application that at any given instant we are oriented with respect to
the tangent of the Earth's surface. So that for the case that we are
instantaneously at one point on the Earth, it doesn't matter if the Earth is
flat, round, oblong or Spherical, even though it has been proven otherwise.
Likewise, to think that an experiment that uses a particular theory and is
successful will fully prove that theory over another yet to come is foolish.

So, conclusions based on application of far reaching theories should be held
at arms length that we might maintain our objectivity. After all, Einstein
and Newton both died before they could achieve a unified theory of the
universe. Nor do I expect those still living will either. For now, none of
them have been proved infallible.

"FREE SPACE" with respect to antenna theory is what? I thought it was
conceptual place so an antenna with a known potential at it's terminals
could be evaluated without ground effects. Is there truly a difference for
our calculations between outer space and several wavelengths above ground in
reasonably dry air?

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 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

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