Cecil:

It that mirror or yours working correctly? Did you try hanging it upside
down? You don't live below the equator do you? Cause, yanno, water spins
one way going down a drain in the northern, opposite in the
southern--somethin' 'bout gravity--or the warping of the ether... grin

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
| Jim Kelley wrote:
| the person I see in the mirror appears to be right handed.
|
| Hey Jim, if a mirror reverses left and right,
| why doesn't it also reverse up and down? :-)
| --
| 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 =---

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:04:12 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

You need to define the particular aspect being conjugated. For example,

Hi Jim,

In fact I don't (which is the whole point of ANY characteristic being
conjugated) because it doesn't matter. There is no aspect (of what
you observe) that is without its conjugate being mirrored. However,
your presumption:
the person I see in the mirror appears to be right handed.
already disqualifies your answer.

The "effluvium" as you described it, was literally true, and
necessary. Being ignored, it has precipitated my projected
expectation:
... Computation of gain comes with the answer (and in all
likelihood so will considerable error).

The "effluvium" as you described it, was literally true as the
discussion (also anticipated) has been reduced to the frame of the
mirror (as so commonly happens in these threads) while abandoning the
substance of the conjugate mirror. This, of course, compounds the
observation above about the rapid descent into errant discussion.

Anyway, the original challenge:
What would you see if you looked into a conjugate mirror?
is meaningful within the context of the Subject line, but perhaps is a
bit too abstract (after all, it does require a knowledge of sight and
conjugation, not a simple coupling of experience). For those who
fear Shakespeare, there is only one three syllable word.

Someone may yet stumble on the answer. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"John Smith wonders if Richard is really Shakespeare reincarnated--and, was
Shakespeare a Hindu, like Cecil?"

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:04:12 -0700, Jim Kelley
| wrote:
|
| You need to define the particular aspect being conjugated. For example,
|
| Hi Jim,
|
| In fact I don't (which is the whole point of ANY characteristic being
| conjugated) because it doesn't matter. There is no aspect (of what
| you observe) that is without its conjugate being mirrored. However,
| your presumption:
| the person I see in the mirror appears to be right handed.
| already disqualifies your answer.
|
| The "effluvium" as you described it, was literally true, and
| necessary. Being ignored, it has precipitated my projected
| expectation:
| ... Computation of gain comes with the answer (and in all
| likelihood so will considerable error).
|
| The "effluvium" as you described it, was literally true as the
| discussion (also anticipated) has been reduced to the frame of the
| mirror (as so commonly happens in these threads) while abandoning the
| substance of the conjugate mirror. This, of course, compounds the
| observation above about the rapid descent into errant discussion.
|
| Anyway, the original challenge:
| What would you see if you looked into a conjugate mirror?
| is meaningful within the context of the Subject line, but perhaps is a
| bit too abstract (after all, it does require a knowledge of sight and
| conjugation, not a simple coupling of experience). For those who
| fear Shakespeare, there is only one three syllable word.
|
| Someone may yet stumble on the answer. ;-)
|
| 73's
| Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
What would you see if you looked into a conjugate mirror?

Please specify the system.
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Richard:

I am confused... is "conjugate mirror" used in regards or "isogamic
copulation" or "orgasmic copulation"--and does this involve mirrors on the
ceiling?

If so, a younger guy(s) and/or gal(s) may be needed here... grin

And, really, I wondering if a definition can be given in mixed company!!!!

Warmest regards,
John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:04:12 -0700, Jim Kelley
| wrote:
|
| You need to define the particular aspect being conjugated. For example,
|
| Hi Jim,
|
| In fact I don't (which is the whole point of ANY characteristic being
| conjugated) because it doesn't matter. There is no aspect (of what
| you observe) that is without its conjugate being mirrored. However,
| your presumption:
| the person I see in the mirror appears to be right handed.
| already disqualifies your answer.
|
| The "effluvium" as you described it, was literally true, and
| necessary. Being ignored, it has precipitated my projected
| expectation:
| ... Computation of gain comes with the answer (and in all
| likelihood so will considerable error).
|
| The "effluvium" as you described it, was literally true as the
| discussion (also anticipated) has been reduced to the frame of the
| mirror (as so commonly happens in these threads) while abandoning the
| substance of the conjugate mirror. This, of course, compounds the
| observation above about the rapid descent into errant discussion.
|
| Anyway, the original challenge:
| What would you see if you looked into a conjugate mirror?
| is meaningful within the context of the Subject line, but perhaps is a
| bit too abstract (after all, it does require a knowledge of sight and
| conjugation, not a simple coupling of experience). For those who
| fear Shakespeare, there is only one three syllable word.
|
| Someone may yet stumble on the answer. ;-)
|
| 73's
| Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Asimov:

Then:

If I were shrunk to the size were an atom is the size of an orange and, I am
holding it in my hand--and I look over at the next closest atom, in the
block of lead I am standing in, and it appears to be about a football field
length away... and if we agree on the preceeding... I have a LOT of this
"free energy" and "virtual photons" in my body--correct?

Indeed, my antenna has a LOT of it, in its' metal, does it not? And, it is
swimming in it, is it not? And, if so, kinda strange no formula takes that
into account, right?

Warmest regards,
John

--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

"Asimov" wrote in message
...
"John Smith" bravely wrote to "All" (12 May 05 08:02:11)
--- on the heady topic of " Reflector Vs Director"

JS Reply-To: "John Smith"
JS Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:30186

JS If I place a piece of paper over a magnet--gently sprinkle iron powder
JS over the paper--I see lines--claimed to be a "magnetic field"....

JS ... do you think these "lines" are photons (waves?)shooting from one
JS end of the magnet to the other (of course they would actually be lying
JS outside the metal of the magnet in a "static" state).... or is this
JS iron powder a "warping" of the ether I am looking at?

The lines are the after-effects of placing the iron powder in the path
of "virtual" photons. These are photons that exist too briefly to be
detected. Spacetime is not an empty vacuum but is a frothing of energy
and virtual particles of all kinds. The virtual photons responsible
for the observed permanent magnet's field travel only a small fraction
of a wavelength but their wavelength is almost infinite.
(i.e. c/F=infinite, when F=zero).

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?" -George Carlin

On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:46:17 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:
I am confused
This was not unexpected.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:23:55 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Please specify the system.
Further elaboration is unnecessary.

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Please specify the system.

Further elaboration is unnecessary.

OK, the answer is that if the conjugate mirror involves RF
waves, as it does in "Reflections", you would see nothing.
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"John Smith" bravely wrote to "All" (12 May 05 18:16:40)
--- on the heady topic of " Reflector Vs Director"

JS Reply-To: "John Smith"
JS Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:30219

JS Asimov:

JS Then:

JS If I were shrunk to the size were an atom is the size of an orange
JS and, I am holding it in my hand--and I look over at the next closest
JS atom, in the block of lead I am standing in, and it appears to be
JS about a football field length away... and if we agree on the
JS preceeding... I have a LOT of this "free energy" and "virtual photons"
JS in my body--correct?
JS Indeed, my antenna has a LOT of it, in its' metal, does it not? And,
JS it is swimming in it, is it not? And, if so, kinda strange no formula
JS takes that into account, right?


Yes there is but the average net result of this energy is always zero.
However, it can be detected as the Casimir Effect, Lamb Shift, and Van
de Waals Forces which arise from the random motions of electrons. Some
people have even described this effect as responsible for Dark Energy
or Zero Point Energy, Fermi Sea, Quantum Ocean, or whatever
descriptive term you like best. Some have speculated it is also
responsible for the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

Some explanations--

Lamb Shift:

" The effect of virtual particles can be measured, and in fact won a
nobel prize for the physicist who did. the lamb shift is the shift
in the spectrum of an electron around a nucleus caused by virtual
particles swarming around it.
"

Casimir Effect:

"
The following comes from the Usenet Physics FAQ
(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/faq.html) and includes some
references:

Original by Philip Gibbs 24-January-1997

What is the Casimir Effect?

The Casimir effect is a small attractive force which acts between
two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is due to quantum
vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field.

The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in
1948. According to the quantum theory, the vacuum contains virtual
particles which are in a continuous state of fluctuation (see
physics FAQ article on virtual particles). Casimir realized that
between two plates, only those virtual photons whose wavelengths fit
a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when
calculating the vacuum energy. The energy density decreases as the
plates are moved closer which implies there is a small force drawing
them together.

The attractive Casimir force between two plates of area A separated
by a distance a can be calculated to be,

pi2 h-bar c
F = ----------- A
240 a4

where h-bar is Planck's constant over two pi and c is the speed of
light.

The tiny force was measured in 1996 by Steven Lamoreaux. His results
were in agreement with the theory to within the experimental
uncertainty of 5%.

Particles other than the photon also contribute a small effect but
only the photon force is measurable. All Bosons such as photons
produce an attractive Casimir force while Fermions make a repulsive
contribution. If electromagnetism was supersymmetric there would be
fermionic photinos whose contribution would exactly cancel that of
the photons and there would be no Casimir effect. The fact that the
Casimir effect exists shows that if supersymmetry exists in nature
it must be a broken symmetry.

According to the theory the total zero point energy in the vacuum is
infinite when summed over all the possible photon modes. The Casimir
effect comes from a difference of energies in which the infinities
cancel. The energy of the vacuum is a puzzle in theories of quantum
gravity since it should act gravitationally and produce a large
cosmological constant which would cause space-time to curl up. The
solution to the inconsistency is expected to be found in a theory of
quantum gravity.

References
H.B.G. Casimir, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. B51, 793 (1948)
S. Lamoreaux, Phys Rev Lett, 78, p5 (1996)

"


A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.