Richard Clark wrote:
There are no sine waves in nature, so by this contortion of logic from
above there are no s-domains (?). Why are there no sine waves in
nature? Because nature is bounded by the Big Bang (a discontinuity)
at one end, and has yet to fulfill its infinite extent.

One would think that a 12 billion year windowing
would be close enough. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I read in sci.electronics.design that Cecil Moore
wrote (in ) about '1/4 vs 1/2 wavelength
antenna', on Wed, 2 Mar 2005:
Richard Clark wrote:
There are no sine waves in nature, so by this contortion of logic from
above there are no s-domains (?). Why are there no sine waves in
nature? Because nature is bounded by the Big Bang (a discontinuity)
at one end, and has yet to fulfill its infinite extent.

One would think that a 12 billion year windowing
would be close enough. :-)

Not only that, but since by definition the Universe started at T=0, any
'sine wave' that starts at a positive zero-crossing is at any later time
indistinguishable from a real one that started at T=0.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Cecil Moore
wrote (in ) about '1/4 vs 1/2 wavelength
antenna', on Wed, 2 Mar 2005:
Richard Clark wrote:
There are no sine waves in nature, so by this contortion of logic from
above there are no s-domains (?). Why are there no sine waves in
nature? Because nature is bounded by the Big Bang (a discontinuity)
at one end, and has yet to fulfill its infinite extent.

One would think that a 12 billion year windowing
would be close enough. :-)

Not only that, but since by definition the Universe started at T=0, any
'sine wave' that starts at a positive zero-crossing is at any later time
indistinguishable from a real one that started at T=0.

Not if we were there the moment the later wave turned on. I heard that amateur
operators hate splatter. RC appears to be an exception, however.

I read in sci.electronics.design that gwhite wrote
(in ) about '1/4 vs 1/2 wavelength
antenna', on Wed, 2 Mar 2005:
John Woodgate wrote:
Not only that, but since by definition the Universe started at T=0, any
'sine wave' that starts at a positive zero-crossing is at any later time
indistinguishable from a real one that started at T=0.

Not if we were there the moment the later wave turned on. I heard that
amateur operators hate splatter. RC appears to be an exception,
however.

See 'at any later time' in my text.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that gwhite wrote
(in ) about '1/4 vs 1/2 wavelength
antenna', on Wed, 2 Mar 2005:
John Woodgate wrote:
Not only that, but since by definition the Universe started at T=0, any
'sine wave' that starts at a positive zero-crossing is at any later time
indistinguishable from a real one that started at T=0.

Not if we were there the moment the later wave turned on. I heard that
amateur operators hate splatter. RC appears to be an exception,
however.

See 'at any later time' in my text.


Oh yeah.