**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Another three days passes...

"Dog - nothing but dogs !!" had inquired of W1XYZ:
Can you please confirm exactly when (year) you
achived an actual physical embodiment of a
functioning carbon nanotube antenna with
dimensions corresponding to visible light?
... If you can do that, then I'll award you the
'mythical $50k' and admit defeat. ...
I appreciate your posting and I look forward
to seeing your next.

And:
I'm still awaiting further links that he or his
company actual beat the other team [per
CNN news].

Did I miss a reply? So, now that all the 'barking of the harbour seals' has
died down, we're right back to the starting point - that is that the CNN
news was in fact new news (not old news). All I'm seeking is a firm
conclusion to all the red herrings and (apparently) false leads to prior
art. It's *really* difficult to prove a negative. But I'll inductively
conclude that it has been proven.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

(Inventor) Bob's (W1XYZ) patents on this form a basis for ownership on such
varieties of antennas, within the construct of the claims. That is my opinion.

The fact that later academic groups allegedly claim discovery or invention on
this or other new technologies is irrelevant: the assignee of he patent is
what's important.

It is common for academic groups to be 5-20 years behind the state of the art
in antenna work BTW.

The CNN story is a nice corroboration of Bob's innovation and invention, in my
opinion. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to give the man some well-deserved credit.
Again, this is also a fairly common problem in some academic groups these days,
unfortunately.

Hat's off, Bob.

73,
Chip N1IR

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
(Inventor) Bob's (W1XYZ) patents on this form
a basis for ownership on such varieties of antennas,
within the construct of the claims. That is my opinion.

That's a hollow 'motherhood' statement - no one could disagree with that
because your statement doesn't actually say anything (except to partially
define the word 'patent').

Back to The Question:

As you well know, a patent doesn't necessarily mean that anything functional
has actually been built. This is self-evident by the numerous US patents for
the impossible (or for the presently impossible). I was NOT asking about
patents, I asked (quite clearly I might add) if anyone had actually built
the subject item at the subject scale before the subject CNN news item.

It is a very simple question.

CNN story (they were first) true or false?

...the assignee of the patent is what's important.

That assumes that there is any money to be made from it within the term. I
believe that something like 99.99+% of all patents are money losing
propositions. They're apparently a worse investment on average than lottery
tickets.

...wouldn't hurt to give the man some well-deserved credit.

Of course.

The CNN story claimed that those people were first. All the RRAA 'harbour
seals' starting barking that it was old news - most of them just didn't read
the story carefully. Now W1XYZ drops by with his patent portfolio but didn't
answer the very simple question - who actually made one first (which is
where this long thread started).

It is a very simple question.

Not patents.

Who made one first?

CNN guys or W1XYZ or anyone else?

So far - no one has provided anything to prove the CNN story was incorrect.

Thanks for playing.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The patent is the only thing that matters in such new technology.

That's what makes Bob a 'player'.

He's a real person with a real patent. And, by golly, he has a real e-mail!

BTW, here's today's trivia question.

Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages of things a few thousands of
years old.

Who--invented--it?

a) Isaac Asimov
b) Harold Urey
c) Linus Pauling
d) Louis Leakey

Not a trick question.

Any 'players'?

73,
Chip N1IR

On 01 Oct 2004 12:09:08 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

|The patent is the only thing that matters in such new technology.
|
|That's what makes Bob a 'player'.
|
|He's a real person with a real patent. And, by golly, he has a real e-mail!
|
|BTW, here's today's trivia question.
|
|Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages of things a few thousands of
|years old.
|
|Who--invented--it?
|
|a) Isaac Asimov
|b) Harold Urey
|c) Linus Pauling
|d) Louis Leakey

e) none of the above. http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/libby.html

|
|Not a trick question.

Really?

|
|Not a trick question.

Really?


Really and truly.

73,
Chip N1IR

On 01 Oct 2004 14:40:56 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

||
||Not a trick question.
|
|Really?
|
|
|Really and truly.

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
The patent is the only thing that matters
in such new technology.

Yawn... Oh sorry...

Look - anyone could 'patent' going into space in a cheap, reusable rocket
like 'this' and like 'that'. What makes the evening news is when someone
actually DOES it. Same thing for 'light antennas' - who did it first
(couldn't care less who happened to apply for a patent if they didn't
actually DO it).

When they changed the definition of 'reduction to practice' from 'send a
working model' to 'just write it down', the whole patent system became a
lawyers' game and a work of fiction in many cases.

BTW, here's today's trivia question.
Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages
of things a few thousands of years old.
Who--invented--it?

Perhaps someone patented it in 1920.

The decay of Carbon-14 and it's relationship to cosmic rays, the atmosphere,
life and death is a natural phenomenon. It wasn't really 'invented' (except
by God and/or Nature), it was discovered (or developed) by W.F. Libby.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica 2003 Deluxe CD edition (oh so cool for
$10):
"The carbon-14 method was developed by the American physicist Willard F.
Libby about 1946."
"...he and his students developed the carbon-14 dating technique."
"[He] wrote Radiocarbon Dating (1952)."
"For this development he was honoured with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in
1960."

From the WWW:
"In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for leading the
team (namely, post-doc James Arnold and graduate student Ernie Anderson,
with a $5,000 grant) that developed Carbon-14 dating."

"Martin Kamen discovered [Carbon-14] in 1940 in collaboration with the late
Sam Ruben, a University of California, Berkeley chemist, while the two were
working at the 60-inch cyclotron at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory."

Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.

That is an incorrect statement.

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.

"Fractenna"
That is an incorrect statement.

Oh stop grand-standing and spit it out.

Geesh...




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.

"Fractenna"
That is an incorrect statement.

Oh stop grand-standing and spit it out.

Geesh...




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Chip wrote:
"Who invented it (radiocarbon dating)?"

I`d rather date a real live girl.

All living things contain radiocarbon (carbon 14). It`s a radioactive
isotope which appears in small concentration in the atmosphere from
cosmic ray bombardment. After death, former living things no longer
absorb the isotope. The radioactive isotope in the dead thing starts to
decay at an exact and uniform rate. Its radiation half-life is 5,730
years.

Remnant radiation makes it possible to date things formerly living
within the past 50,000 years. approximately.

The radiocarbon dating technique was developed by Dr. Willard F. Libby
(1908-1980) in the late 1940s.

This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI.

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 11:51:24 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:
This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.


Hi Richard,

Yes, an answer for the itinerant questioner.

But now for something completely different but wholly within the
purview of light (let's see if they can get this one):

In an infinite universe filled with stars, every line of sight should
eventually meet the surface of a star. The dimming of starlight with
distance should be exactly canceled out by the increase in the number
of stars you see as you look farther out, so the night sky should
appear as bright as the surface of the sun - but it is not.

This paradox, was solved by:
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow

Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:


This paradox, was solved by:
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow

Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hubble

Olber

tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 11:51:24 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.



Hi Richard,

Yes, an answer for the itinerant questioner.

But now for something completely different but wholly within the
purview of light (let's see if they can get this one):

In an infinite universe filled with stars, every line of sight should
eventually meet the surface of a star. The dimming of starlight with
distance should be exactly canceled out by the increase in the number
of stars you see as you look farther out, so the night sky should
appear as bright as the surface of the sun - but it is not.

This paradox, was solved by:
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow

Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.

That would be Hubble that solved the paradox, and the initial paradox
was by Heinrich Olbers, although Jean-Phillippe Loys de Cheseaux (jeez
Louise, whatta name!) dabbled in that too. Even Kepler to some extent -
though he took the easy way out and decided the Universe must not be
infinite.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.

From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:01:27 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

A close and suggestive answer.

Hi All,

Well, it is notable that no "astronomer" got this one right ;-)

I will 'fess up in that it was a trick question because it contained a
ringer (one that three out of three sprung for).

However two out of three got the extra credit question (Olber's
Paradox). No doubt second tier, and to date silent, observers may
chime in with "authority." ;-)

No, Hubble may have described an answer that satisfies the paradox,
however the FIRST (1848) and ACCURATE response to this issue was
written by Edgar Allen Poe in "Eureka!" what he calls a prose poem
dedicated to Alexander von Humboldt:
"Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the
sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by
the Galaxy -- since there could be absolutely no point, in all
that background, at which would not exist a star."

Poe's work is a very large monograph on the nature of electricity,
gravitation and a very sophisticated description of the cosmology of
cluster galaxies (including what are still current theories of
condensation during stellar and planetary formation). To bring the
paradox to a conclusion he offers: for our being able to view this
totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of luminosity requires
that the universe must have existed FOREVER. The concept of light
traversing space at less than instantaneous velocity (and that there
are huge and vast distances involved) shows a deep consideration of
the topic. This monograph is exceedingly developed with a style of
irony that I enjoy.

This intelligence touches on a topic that I have broached on one other
occasion. Poe was at one time an engineering student at West Point,
THE pre-eminent engineering school of America (7 presidents were
engineers). Most of us only encounter his work through recitations of
"The Raven," or, for many of us, with the drive-in movies produced by
Roger Corman in the early 60s with Vincent Price et al ("The Tell-Tale
Heart," "The Fall of the House of Usher," "The Pit and the Pendulum"
and others).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Harrison wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

I have not seen that question before, but will speculate that Edwin
Hubble deserves the credit as he used "red shift" in the light from
other galaxies to show that they are speeding away from us and our
galaxy. In fact, they are accelerating so that the farther the galaxy is
away from us, the faster it is moving away.

From continuous acceleration, the distant galaxy will eventually reach
the speed of light. Then, light from the distsnt galaxy won`t reach us
because it will tag along with the fast moving galaxy.

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.

Hubble has also shown that the Doppler effect would shift the frequency
lower as velocity of the retreating thing increases. Shift the frequency
low enough and the wave is no longer described as light but may be
classified as a millimeter radio wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

To be accererating, there would have to be a force .

Where would this force be coming from and what pray tell is directing
it?

The speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. If a light
source were to be moving at the speed of light away from an observer,
an impossiblity in itself, the light would still be moving at c towards
the observer.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Richard Clark wrote:
"To bring this paradox to a conclusion he (E.A.Poe) offers, for our
being able to view this totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of
luminosity requires that the universe must have existed forever."

It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.

Albert Einstein speculated that the speed of light is a universal
constant. He may be wrong.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"To bring this paradox to a conclusion he (E.A.Poe) offers, for our
being able to view this totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of
luminosity requires that the universe must have existed forever."

It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.

Albert Einstein speculated that the speed of light is a universal
constant. He may be wrong.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of light
is other than a constant, ever.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 08:04:08 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.

Hi Richard,

Poe got it right. The greater portion of the night sky is as black
now as it was in Poe's time - nothing has changed to render Poe's
assessment incorrect.

" My general proposition, then, is this: -- In the Original Unity
of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with
the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation.

Poe is describing both concepts we now proclaim as the Big Bang, AND
the Big Crunch.

"In speaking of what is ordinarily implied by the expression,
'Universe,' I shall take a phrase of limitation -- 'the Universe
of stars.' Why this distinction is considered necessary, will be
seen in the sequel.

"But even of treatises on the really limited, although always
assumed as the un limited, Universe of stars, I know none in which
a survey, even of this limited Universe, is so taken as to warrant
deductions from its individuality."
...
" It seems to me that, in aiming at this latter effect, and,
through it, at the consequences -- the conclusions -- the
suggestions -- the speculations -- or, if nothing better offer
itself, the mere guesses which may result from it -- we require
something like a mental gyration on the heel. We need so rapid a
revolution of all things about the central point of sight that,
while the minutiae vanish altogether, even the more conspicuous
objects become blended into one. Among the vanishing minutiae, in
a survey of this kind, would be all exclusively terrestrial
matters. The Earth would be considered in its planetary relations
alone. A man, in this view, becomes mankind; mankind a member of
the cosmical family of Intelligences."

These paragraphs introduce a literary device used by Poe to discuss
the topic, a message found in a floating bottle - from the futu

" And now, before proceeding to our subject proper, let me beg the
reader's attention to an extract or two from a somewhat remarkable
letter, which appears to have been found corked in a bottle and
floating on the Mare Tenebrarum - an ocean well described by the
Nubian geographer, Ptolemy Hephestion, but little frequented in
modern days unless by the Transcendentalists and some other divers
for crotchets. The date of this letter, I confess, surprises me
even more particularly than its contents; for it seems to have
been written in the year Two thousand eight hundred and
forty-eight. As for the passages I am about to transcribe, they, I
fancy, will speak for themselves."

I will pause here in anticipation of further inquiry. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

A.A. Michelson and E.W.Morley in 1881 measured the speed of light in the
direction of the Earth and the speed of light at right angles to the
Earth`s motion. No difference was found.

Light does have different speeds in different media. This causes light
to bend when passing from one medium to another. The "speed of light" is
through space or a vacuum. The more a substance bends light, the higher
its refractive index.

I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

A.A. Michelson and E.W.Morley in 1881 measured the speed of light in the
direction of the Earth and the speed of light at right angles to the
Earth`s motion. No difference was found.

Light does have different speeds in different media. This causes light
to bend when passing from one medium to another. The "speed of light" is
through space or a vacuum. The more a substance bends light, the higher
its refractive index.

I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

You might want to read the following:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

and maybe:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...xperiment.html


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

Heh, heh, and nobody has ever gotten *exactly* the same results. :-)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Harrison wrote:
I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

I predict that Einstein was wrong by the same percentage that Newton
was wrong. After all, physics is a converging series. :-) In 100 years,
I predict that Einstein's theories will be just as obsolete as Newton's
theories are now. 'Course, my great-great-grandson will have to collect
any bets.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Harrison wrote:
I said Einstein may be wrong. I should have added that I don`t think so.

I predict that Einstein was wrong by the same percentage that Newton
was wrong. After all, physics is a converging series. :-) In 100 years,
I predict that Einstein's theories will be just as obsolete as Newton's
theories are now. 'Course, my great-great-grandson will have to collect
any bets.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


Perhaps you might read:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Einstein.html

and tell us where there's a place for a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
"There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of
light is other than a constant, ever."

Heh, heh, and nobody has ever gotten *exactly* the same results. :-)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Or to put it in more realistic terms, as instrumentation gets better
and better, the value of c gets more decimal points.

By 1947 it was to +/- 3 km/s, in 1958 +/- 0.1, and by 1973 +/- 0.001.

To put things in perspective, +/- 0.001 km/s is an error of .000000000007%.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.

Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."





-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Dogs do not play dice... wrote:
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.

Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."

Actually, what he said was "God does not play dice with the world.".

He also said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not
doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal
himself because of his enormous size".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Richard Clark wrote:

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:01:27 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:
"This paradox (differing light intensities in various directions) was
solved by?"

There may be a time shortage too as Einstein has shown time slows as a
thing moves faster.


A close and suggestive answer.

Hi All,

Well, it is notable that no "astronomer" got this one right ;-)

I will 'fess up in that it was a trick question because it contained a
ringer (one that three out of three sprung for).

However two out of three got the extra credit question (Olber's
Paradox). No doubt second tier, and to date silent, observers may
chime in with "authority." ;-)

No, Hubble may have described an answer that satisfies the paradox,
however the FIRST (1848) and ACCURATE response to this issue was
written by Edgar Allen Poe in "Eureka!" what he calls a prose poem
dedicated to Alexander von Humboldt:
"Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the
sky would present us an uniform luminosity, like that displayed by
the Galaxy -- since there could be absolutely no point, in all
that background, at which would not exist a star."

Awesome, Richard! Can this monograph be found online?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Harrison wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
"To bring this paradox to a conclusion he (E.A.Poe) offers, for our
being able to view this totality of solar flux as a continuous sheet of
luminosity requires that the universe must have existed forever."

It is now assumed that space and time began maybe 15 or 20 billion years
ago. Poe may be wrong.

Albert Einstein speculated that the speed of light is a universal
constant. He may be wrong.

Yes, Light slows down and speeds up so that fundamentalist
interpretations of the bible can be correct. Oy!

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:22:17 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Awesome, Richard! Can this monograph be found online?

Hi Mike,

After some rummaging:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/poe/eureka.html

73's and enjoy,
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dogs do not play dice... wrote:
Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."

So that's how it is possible for an omniscient God to give
free will to human beings?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
"Poe got it right."

I had no idea Poe had such a scientific interest. Poe no doubt got many
things right but his observations on the universe are so extensive and
written so long ago that it is unlikely that some errors can`t be found.
Poe`s scientific study is impressive and he got right much of what he
wrote. Where did I get the idea he spent much of his life spaced out on
drugs?

In the years since Poe, much has been added to scientific knowledge.

The antenna section of "Transmission Lines, Antennas, and Wave Guides"
by King, Mimno, and Wing, was written by Ronald W.P. King. On page 73 he
gives the dielectric constant of free-space as:

Epsilon o = 8.85 times 10 to the minus 12 farad / m.

King also gives the permeability of free-space as:

Mu o = 4 pi times 10 to the minus 7 henries / m

From these, King calculates the velocity of light (vC).

vC = 1 / sq.rt. Mu o times Epsilon o = 3 times 10 to the 8th power m /
sec.

On page 117, King elaborates, saying: The existence of a characteristic
resistance for electromagnetic effects is just as mysterious (no volts
and amps in the wave itself), but no more so than the existence of the
finite velocity---3 times 10 to the 8th power m / sec.

---Physical science seelks to provide a mathematical mechanism for
predicting observable effects about nature."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:23:01 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
"Poe got it right."

I had no idea Poe had such a scientific interest. Poe no doubt got many
things right but his observations on the universe are so extensive and
written so long ago that it is unlikely that some errors can`t be found.

Apparently you have followed the link I've offered to Mike.

Poe`s scientific study is impressive and he got right much of what he
wrote. Where did I get the idea he spent much of his life spaced out on
drugs?

Hi Richard,

This may be attributable to his contemporaries, certainly. After-all
Coleridge and buddies tasted the popular social drug, Hashish.

However, Poe's "drunkenness" was a legend based upon his death, which
recent theories dismiss through rather abstract research (and I am
rather vague as to them myself, having seen them in fleeting reference
some years ago). Either way, there is very little substantiation as
to the cause of his death except he was found collapsed in the street.
He died about a year after this work I have offered.

In the years since Poe, much has been added to scientific knowledge.

Perhaps, but Poe's contribution is not from demonstration, as he would
say, but rather through knowing the truth - an artistic intuition.
His style directly attacks the notion of exactitudes, especially when
they are eclipsed by later, more ponderous exactitudes. This is
especially shown in his wry commentary through the fictitious future
correspondent of the message in the bottle:

"'Do you know that it is scarcely more than eight or nine hundred
years ago since the metaphysicians first consented to relieve the
people of the singular fancy that there exist but two practicable
roads to Truth? Believe it if you can! It appears, however, that
long, long ago, in the night of Time, there lived a Turkish
philosopher called Aries and surnamed Tottle.' [Here, possibly,
the letter-writer means Aristotle; the best names are wretchedly
corrupted in two or three thousand years.]"
...
"Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme, until the advent of one
Hog, surnamed 'the Ettrick shepherd,' who preached an entirely
different system, which he called the a posteriori or in ductive.
His plan referred altogether to sensation. He proceeded by
observing, analyzing, and classifying facts -- instantiae Naturae,
as they were somewhat affectedly called -- and arranging them into
general laws. In a word, while the mode of Aries rested on
noumena, that of Hog depended on phenomena; and so great was the
admiration excited by this latter system that, at its first
introduction, Aries fell into general disrepute. Finally, however,
he recovered ground, and was permitted to divide the empire of
Philosophy with his more modern rival: -- the savans contenting
themselves with proscribing all other competitors, past, present,
and to come; putting an end to all controversy on the topic by the
promulgation of a Median law, to the effect that the Aristotelian
and Baconian roads are, and of right ought to be, the sole
possible avenues to knowledge: -- 'Baconian,' you must know, my
dear friend," adds the letter-writer at this point, "was an
adjective invented as equivalent to Hog-ian, and at the same time
more dignified and euphonious."

The style is rather dry and extended for modern readers, so I will
offer a shorthand of this introductory matter that Poe offers. He is
simply mocking the philosophers, Aristotle (Aries, the Ram) and Bacon
(Hog, the pig), or rather mocking those who drag their corpses out to
embellish their own impoverished theories (AKA, the
"Transcendentalists" or our Hash eaters already mentioned):

"The error of our progenitors was quite analogous with that of the
wiseacre who fancies he must necessarily see an object the more
distinctly, the more closely he holds it to his eyes. They blinded
themselves, too, with the impalpable, titillating Scotch snuff of
detail; and thus the boasted facts of the Hog-ites were by no
means always facts -- a point of little importance but for the
assumption that they always were. The vital taint, however, in
Baconianism -- its most lamentable fount of error -- lay in its
tendency to throw power and consideration into the hands of merely
perceptive men -- of those inter-Tritonic minnows, the
microscopical savans -- the diggers and pedlers of minute facts,
for the most part in physical science -- facts all of which they
retailed at the same price upon the highway; their value
depending, it was supposed, simply upon the fact of their fact,
without reference to their applicability or inapplicability in the
development of those ultimate and only legitimate facts, called
Law.

"Than the persons" -- the letter goes on to say -- "than the
persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy into a
station for which they were unfitted -- thus transferred from the
sculleries into the parlors of Science -- from its pantries into
its pulpits -- than these individuals a more intolerant -- a more
intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of
the earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike,
the one word 'fact' -- but, for the most part, even of this one
word, they knew not even the meaning.

A sweet vintage of writing that makes the grape pale.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote in message
...
Dogs do not play dice... wrote:
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Jim Pennino
...tell us where there's a place for
a "percentage" where Einstein might
have been wrong.

Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."

Actually, what he said was "God does not play dice with the world.".

He also said "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not
doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal
himself because of his enormous size".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.


As to playing dice with the world, we just got near-missed by a decent hunk
of rock last week. It's coming back in four years; do ya feel lucky?

How fortunate Al didn't try to make a living as a taxonomist.

Ed
wb6wsn

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:07:00 -0700, "Ed Price" wrote:

It's coming back in four years

Hi Ed,

Have the Republicans named it Clinton yet? Perhaps if we made a
pre-emptive strike against Mars.... The day before it hits us we can
all expect to hear why:
"It's a hard job!"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Dogs do not play dice... wrote:
Al said: "God does not play dice..."

Current Truth is: "He not only plays dice, he sometimes throws them where
even He can't see them."

So that's how it is possible for an omniscient God to give
free will to human beings?


Uh oh; Cecil asks The Big One! A few of the answers a

1. God?
2. God's not omniscient.
3. God takes long breaks.
4. God subcontracts.
5. Free Will isn't free, and the rent is overdue.
6. God likes dogs better than humans.
7. God's got a weird sense of humor.


Ed
wb6wsn

wrote:


There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of light
is other than a constant, ever.


FYI:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~dzuba/varyc.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_010815.html

vy 73

Andy, M1EBV

Andy Cowley wrote:
wrote:


There has never been a contradictory observation that the speed of light
is other than a constant, ever.


FYI:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~dzuba/varyc.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_010815.html

vy 73

Andy, M1EBV

FYI:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=606

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.