Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wimpie wrote in :
There is nothing wrong with a jump to another branch of science (for example astrophysics) to find out whether the statement is right or wrong. I agree with that. It looks like a question of scale, not an absolute. I don't know enough to say much, so I haven't, but if this is like relativistic effects in that it is real, but extremely insignificant on the scales presented for discussion, then arguing about it is surely proportional in its significance. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
El 11-11-14 12:43, Lostgallifreyan escribió:
wrote in : There is nothing wrong with a jump to another branch of science (for example astrophysics) to find out whether the statement is right or wrong. I agree with that. It looks like a question of scale, not an absolute. I don't know enough to say much, so I haven't, but if this is like relativistic effects in that it is real, but extremely insignificant on the scales presented for discussion, then arguing about it is surely proportional in its significance. You are right, it is a matter of scale and especially rotation frequency, but you don't need relativistic velocities to make it happen. I posted an explanation based on two loops in the same topic. -- Wim PA3DJS Please remove abc first in case of PM |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Antenna & Tuner on 160M Question | Antenna | |||
160m antenna | Antenna | |||
Why did this work (160m antenna)? | Antenna | |||
Outbacker ML-130 160m antenna question | Antenna | |||
question about 160m Isotron Antenna | Antenna |