On 23 Jan, 18:54, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:
Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
snip
We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations.


Why would you say that? Lets look at a rain drop accellerating towards
ground
until it comes to a sudden stop. Now look at this senario in terms of
the big picture
and we note that relatively speaking the droplet does not follow a
straight line relative
to a particular point on the face on the earth because of the earths
rotation.
So with the accellaration towards earth by gravity is a relative change
in time
it needs an accompanaying vector to qualify as curl which is supplied
by the
earths rotation. Thus I would contend that a droplet in free fall is
statically loaded
and provided with a time varying change at the same time. Thus the
noise I heard
with the antenna inside the car while in the rain forest was actually
something that
was transmitted as opposed to a static discharge on impact!. If you
read about space
transmissions you will note that they always place the word static
within " "..
Why do you think they do that? An answer to that would be very
interesting in
light of what I infere early in this post would it not?
Art


However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

Well the 377 represents ether the impedance in space or ether
the relative impedance in space. Ether way it works out O.K. and the
math
is made to prove it afrter the fact. it is ether that or something else
Art

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you.
I have a clone?


But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...
Did you try changing the angle of a vertical dipole
to obtain some observables?
How can you sleep?
Art

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

art wrote:


Why would you say that? Lets look at a rain drop accellerating towards
ground
until it comes to a sudden stop. Now look at this senario in terms of
the big picture
and we note that relatively speaking the droplet does not follow a
straight line relative
to a particular point on the face on the earth because of the earths
rotation.
So with the accellaration towards earth by gravity is a relative change
in time
it needs an accompanaying vector to qualify as curl which is supplied
by the
earths rotation. Thus I would contend that a droplet in free fall is
statically loaded
and provided with a time varying change at the same time. Thus the
noise I heard
with the antenna inside the car while in the rain forest was actually
something that
was transmitted as opposed to a static discharge on impact!. If you
read about space
transmissions you will note that they always place the word static
within " "..
Why do you think they do that? An answer to that would be very
interesting in
light of what I infere early in this post would it not?
Art

Art:

Take 1.1111 Mhz. How do we know that is 1,111,100 cps?

We know that because earth makes 1 revolution in 1 day (24 hrs).
We know there are 60 mins in an hour.
We know there are 60 secs in a min.
Etc.

Now, destroy the earth, forget all about its' revolutions.

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?

If you were an alien the rf would NOT appear to change (assuming they
are "stupid" enough to base time on the rotations of their planet), what
does it look like to them? Certainly NOT 1,111,100 cps.

So, how could everyone ever agree on what that rf REALLY is?

You must give me an example NOT including the earth, else I will give
you back examples basing time on my goldfish swimming! (and he/she makes
way more than 1 revolution per/day!)

And, perhaps gravity and time are only two phenomenons of the same thing ...

In space, there is only the ether ...

Regards,
JS

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:41:16 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH

Any dimbulb alien knows that! They've been watching our TV for more
than half a century to catch onto the universal standard of a
commercial break.

Desperately trying to elevate the technical content of this thread to
at least the level of a Duz laundry ad.... "Antennas led astray"
sounds like a 50s Sal Mineo flick about delinquents.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I spend time with EZNEC trying my antenna theories - most of which are
dogs, but once in a while I get lucky...
No, I have not done the modeling iterations for off the vertical as
fine as 1 degree steps as you suggest... Not sure what surprises you
are alluding to as I have spent considerable time modeling leaning
vertical elements - and then built arrays that sprawl across hundreds
of feet of swamp... I am actually running my EZNEC modeled antennas on
160...

cheers ... denny / k8do

On Jan 23, 1:20 pm, "art" wrote:

I have put my money down in earnest, I am not just waving my hands.

Reminds me of a Pink Floyd song... "Your lips move, but I can't hear
what yer
saying..." ooooooohhhhhh, oooohhhh, I've become comfortably numb"

MK

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH
...

Richard:

Really?

Perhaps my understanding of Einsteins theory is incorrect, or I am
attempting to add a relative quality to it?

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I
must admit--if Einstein said it, it must be true! half-smirk

Warmest regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:41:16 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

Now, what is that 1.1111 Mhz really?
10,214,000,000,000,000 oscillations of the Cesium atom - DUH

Any dimbulb alien knows that! They've been watching our TV for more
than half a century to catch onto the universal standard of a
commercial break.

Desperately trying to elevate the technical content of this thread to
at least the level of a Duz laundry ad.... "Antennas led astray"
sounds like a 50s Sal Mineo flick about delinquents.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

Just so you can double check me:

http://www.stormfax.com/virginia.htm

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:14:56 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

In that aliens galaxy existing far-far-away on a planet engaged in Star
Wars, that cesium atom may not oscillate at that frequency at all!

Cesium by any other name would smell as sw.... no, that alludes to
Shakespeare and we know how much he gets ****ed on here by
anglophobes. We'll try that again:

If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens
watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this
case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical
problem; it is a cultural one.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

John Smith I wrote:

Now, like that told Virgina O'Hanlon about Santa Claus--if the NEW YORK
TIMES said it, it must be true--or, perhaps the editor was mistaken?; I


Make that "New York Sun."

Hey, what can I say, I read the Times ...

JS

Richard Clark wrote:

...
If it didn't oscillate (resonate actually in a magnetically biased
electron fountain) at that frequency, it's probably Rubidium. Aliens
watching first runs of 50s soap operas ("The Secret Storm" in this
case) would undoubtedly have naming problems. This is not a technical
problem; it is a cultural one.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Again, I may have misunderstood "Old Al" along then!

If that cesium atom no longer obeys your "10,214,000,000,000,000
oscillations"--"LAW", then perhaps 1,111,100 cps no longer obeys the
"cps law" either. And, indeed, 1.1111 Mhz is no longer what we see at
all!!!

Of course, the above must be wrong. ET did manage to call home and
apparently there were able to agree on the same freq. (sure would have
liked to have taken a look at "Ole ETs'" watch ...)

Warmest regards,
JS