W. Watson wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Wayne Watson wrote:

For example, it would seem unlikely an x-ray antenna (I believe
there is such a thing on one of the space satellites used in astronomy)
would be anything like one used to receive TV. Certainly the
'antenna' to
collect visible light is different than that for AM radio.



Is it easier to pick up a twig than to pick up a tree?
Methinks you need a better understanding of wavelength.

Why not provide it then?

Let me try to make it easier on you. Why do I have to resort to using an
optical telescope to see a star rather than using a radio receiver that
might work in the same part of EM spectrum, visual light? After all an EM
wave is an EM wave, isn't it? Shouldn't we be able to use the same equipment
to observe the entire spectrum? Before I suggest an answer in this case,
I'll let you have a go at it.

--
Wayne T. Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA)
(121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time)
Obz Site: 39° 15' 7" N, 121° 2' 32" W, 2700 feet

Traveling in remote places in the winter. What's the best
tool to carry with you? An axe.
-- Survivorman, Discovery (SCI) Channel

Web Page: home.earthlink.net/~mtnviews

W. Watson wrote:
W. Watson wrote:
Wayne Watson wrote:
Let me try to make it easier on you.

Are you bipolar? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp