Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.


Thanks,

Radium

Radium wrote:

...
Thanks,

Radium


ROFLOL!!!

JS

Radium wrote:

Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

Why not ?

You're a trolling IDIOT.

Graham

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip


No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.



Didn't you pull something like this crap in the sci.engr.television.advanced
newsgroup a few years ago? The correct anwer then and now is that the
output signal is the modulating signal with a slow phase change impressed on
it proportional to the instantaneous amplitude of the carrier. Think
"rotating vector."

No further replies forthcoming, as my troll-o-meter is edging into the red
zone.

"Radium" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.


Thanks,

Radium


Radium

The answer is no. It takes a finite time for even so called 'instantaneous'
quantum interactions to occur, so the frequencies quoted are a nonsense.
Essentially frequencies above around 10 ^ 30 Hz may (as) well not exist. I
am probably a few orders of magnitude out here, but that is the general
idea.

For a detailed explaination see "The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to
the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose - ISBN 0739458477". Available from
Amazon and all good booksellers. Mr. Penrose has collaborated with some of
the greatest theoretical mathamaticians and physicists of the last fifty
years and if you can follow the maths, all will become clear. This book will
explain a lot of the maths required anyway, so worth giving it a go.

Most mathematicians prefer to simplify equations by removing superfluous
zeroes and exponents by cancellation on either side of the equation. :-)

Mike G0ULI

Mike Kaliski wrote:
For a detailed explaination see "The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to
the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose - ISBN 0739458477".

Mike, does he say anything about quantum entanglement?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jun 28, 3:52 am, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote:
"Radium" wrote in message

oups.com...

snip



No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Didn't you pull something like this crap in the sci.engr.television.advanced
newsgroup a few years ago? The correct anwer then and now is that the
output signal is the modulating signal with a slow phase change impressed on
it proportional to the instantaneous amplitude of the carrier. Think
"rotating vector."

No further replies forthcoming, as my troll-o-meter is edging into the red
zone.

Your troll-o-meter is defective, it should be pegged hard in the red
zone.
Please have it recalibrated to a proper sensitivity.

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
For a detailed explaination see "The Road to Reality: A complete Guide
to
the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose - ISBN 0739458477".

Mike, does he say anything about quantum entanglement?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil

Yes indeed he does. This book is about as leading edge as it gets. The
author has worked closely with Stephen Hawking and people of similar
academic credentials. It doesn't get any better than that.

It is clear from reading this book that we have reached a plateau in our
capability of understanding how the universe works and we need to await the
arrival of new technology and techniques to be able to test the latest
theories. The theory has outstripped the technology for the time being.

Mike G0ULI

On 6/28/07 10:22 AM, in article ,
"Mike Kaliski" wrote:


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
For a detailed explaination see "The Road to Reality: A complete Guide
to
the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose - ISBN 0739458477".

Mike, does he say anything about quantum entanglement?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil

Yes indeed he does. This book is about as leading edge as it gets. The
author has worked closely with Stephen Hawking and people of similar
academic credentials. It doesn't get any better than that.

It is clear from reading this book that we have reached a plateau in our
capability of understanding how the universe works and we need to await the
arrival of new technology and techniques to be able to test the latest
theories. The theory has outstripped the technology for the time being.

Mike G0ULI



They don't know how to tie strings together?

On Jun 28, 12:38 am, Radium wrote:
Hi:

Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.

I have a very weird question about electromagnetic radiation,
carriers, and modulators.

Is it mathematically-possible to carry a modulator signal with a
frequency of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 gigacycles
every 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond and
an amplitude of 1-watt-per-meter-squared on a AM carrier signal whose
frequency is 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000)
nanocycle* every 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 giga-
eons and whose amplitude is a minimum of 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000 gigaphotons per 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond?

If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) second is an
extremely short amount of time. 10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-
power-10^1,000,000,000) nanosecond is even shorter because a
nanosecond is shorter than a second.

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 cycles is an extremely
large amount of cycles. 10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000
gigacycles is even more because a gigacycle is more than a cycle.

Giga-eon = a billion eons

Eon = a billion years

Gigacycle = a billion cycles.

*nanocycle = billionth of a cycle

Gigaphoton = a billion photons

10^1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000 -- now that is one
large large number.

10^1,000,000,000 = 10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000

So you get:

(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(1,000,000,000-to-the-power-10^1,000,000,000) = 10^-(10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000)-to-the-power-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000)

10^-(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-to-the-
power-1,000,000,000) is an extremely small number at it equals 10-to-
the-power-NEGATIVE-[(10-to-the-power-1,000,000,000) to the power (10-
to-the-power-1,000,000,000)]

No offense but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
really interested in this.

Thanks,

Radium

I guess you could have some real problems when the rise time of your
modulated envelope becomes faster than the speed of light.