AM electromagnetic waves: astronomically-high modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency

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

On Jun 27, 9:38 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> 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

On Jun 27, 9:43 pm, John Smith I <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > ...
> > Thanks,
>
> > Radium
>
> ROFLOL!!!
>
> JS

On Jun 27, 9:59 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Radium wrote:
> > Hi:
>
> > Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
>
> Why not ?
>
> You're a trolling IDIOT.
>
> Graham

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> hath wroth:

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

Why? Would you expect facts to change if I were annoyed or offended?
>If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.

Oh, that's easy. The worlds supply of zeros, nulls, and comma
separators is strictly limited. The galactic supply of such things
were created by the big bang and are not being made any more. If you
consume a substantial number of zeros, the zeros must be borrowed from
somewhere. While it is mathematically possible to bury the reader in
zeros, it is ecologically incorrect to do so. Also, be advised that
the government budget and trade deficits have cornered the supply of
zeros, and may soon approach an astronomical accumulation of zeros. At
the present rate of zero depletion, you may soon be forced to use
large exponentials, in order to avoid consuming zeros.

>No offense

Would defense be acceptable?

>but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
>jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
>really interested in this.

There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
please but do save the zeros for those that need them.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jun 27, 11:44 pm, Jeff Liebermann <j...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
> >Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
>
> Why? Would you expect facts to change if I were annoyed or offended?
>
> >If it is not mathematically-possible, then please explain why.
>
> Oh, that's easy. The worlds supply of zeros, nulls, and comma
> separators is strictly limited. The galactic supply of such things
> were created by the big bang and are not being made any more. If you
> consume a substantial number of zeros, the zeros must be borrowed from
> somewhere. While it is mathematically possible to bury the reader in
> zeros, it is ecologically incorrect to do so. Also, be advised that
> the government budget and trade deficits have cornered the supply of
> zeros, and may soon approach an astronomical accumulation of zeros. At
> the present rate of zero depletion, you may soon be forced to use
> large exponentials, in order to avoid consuming zeros.
>
> >No offense
>
> Would defense be acceptable?
>
> >but please respond with reasonable answers & keep out the
> >jokes, off-topic nonsense, taunts, insults, and trivializations. I am
> >really interested in this.
>
> There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
> please but do save the zeros for those that need them.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann j...@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
> please but do save the zeros for those that need them.


an a-null-ment is in order.




mike

On Jun 28, 12:15 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
> > please but do save the zeros for those that need them.
>
> an a-null-ment is in order.
>
> mike

"Radium" <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183005481.445745.166800@z28g2000prd.googlegr 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

"Cecil Moore" <nospam@w5dxp.com> wrote in message
news:ucNgi.9159$c06.6028@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne 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?

Or why coat hangers entangle when the door is closed?

Damn, I told you cellphones cause brain damage!

You might try rolled up balls of aluminum foil under your
bed, that used to help our software programmers. Oh, wait,
they were always a bit short.

-larry / dallas

"Cecil Moore" <nospam@w5dxp.com> wrote in message
news:ucNgi.9159$c06.6028@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne 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 Jun 28, 10:22 am, "Mike Kaliski" <michael.kali...@tesco.net> wrote:
> "Cecil Moore" <nos...@w5dxp.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ucNgi.9159$c06.6028@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne 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 Jun 28, 12:15 am, m II <c...@in.the.hat> wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
> > please but do save the zeros for those that need them.
>
> an a-null-ment is in order.
>
> mike

.. . . ? . . .

On Jun 28, 4:09 am, "Mike Kaliski" <michael.kali...@tesco.net> wrote:
> "Radium" <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183005481.445745.166800@z28g2000prd.googlegr 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

.. . . ? . . .

On Jun 28, 4:46 am, Cecil Moore <nos...@w5dxp.com> wrote:
> 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 6/28/07 10:22 AM, in article M8WdneZJb7aqcx7bnZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com,
"Mike Kaliski" <michael.kaliski@tesco.net> wrote:

>
> "Cecil Moore" <nospam@w5dxp.com> wrote in message
> news:ucNgi.9159$c06.6028@newssvr22.news.prodigy.ne 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?

m II <c@in.the.hat> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
>> please but do save the zeros for those that need them.

>an a-null-ment is in order.
>mike

Divorcing oneself from reality is probably easier and cheaper than
getting the church involved in an annulment.

The problem here is that most people don't understand the difference
between a zero and a null. Zeros are easy as they are place holders
for orders of magnitude increases in quantities. Nulls are what's
left when we run out of zeros. Think of nulls as place holders for
the missing zeros.

The uncontrolled substitution of nulls for missing zeros has the
potential for destroying civilization as we know it. For example, a
check written for a million dollars would normally be inscribed:
$1,000,000.00
When all the zero have been consumed and replaced by nulls, it would
look like this:
$1, , .
which leaves much to the imagination. Perhaps we should add zeros to
the endangered "specie" list?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

In article <1183052987.367343.274620@g37g2000prf.googlegroups .com>, rhf-
newsgroups@pacbell.net says...
> On Jun 28, 4:46 am, Cecil Moore <nos...@w5dxp.com> wrote:
> > 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
>
> . . . ? . . .
>
>
I see there are a lot of unanswered questions in your life.

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4683403D.24A0BC36@hotmail.com...
>
>
" Radium"

Is a certified nutcase........
nothing new here.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> m II <c@in.the.hat> hath wroth:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>> There are about 10^80 particles in the universe. Do with them as you
>>> please but do save the zeros for those that need them.
>
>> an a-null-ment is in order.
>> mike
>
> Divorcing oneself from reality is probably easier and cheaper than
> getting the church involved in an annulment.
>
> The problem here is that most people don't understand the difference
> between a zero and a null. Zeros are easy as they are place holders
> for orders of magnitude increases in quantities. Nulls are what's
> left when we run out of zeros. Think of nulls as place holders for
> the missing zeros.
>
> The uncontrolled substitution of nulls for missing zeros has the
> potential for destroying civilization as we know it. For example, a
> check written for a million dollars would normally be inscribed:
> $1,000,000.00
> When all the zero have been consumed and replaced by nulls, it would
> look like this:
> $1, , .
> which leaves much to the imagination. Perhaps we should add zeros to
> the endangered "specie" list?
>
Doesn't the space collapse so that we end up with $1...?

On Jun 28, 12:38 am, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> 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.

Radium wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Please don't be annoyed/offended by my question.
>

> 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

Ah our village idiot is back again.
Also crossposting like all welbehaving
village idiots.

Don Bowey wrote:

> They don't know how to tie strings together?


When some of them have only one end, it becomes bothersome. thankfully
my shoelaces were spared this metaphysical ambiguity.







mike

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:09:37 GMT, Larry Finger
<Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote:

>Doesn't the space collapse so that we end up with $1...?

Space does not collapse except in the vicinity of a black hole. Space
also tends to collapse during department reorganizations, where
there's never enough space left.

There's also the problem of accounting for the missing nulls. Where
did they go and what was the exchange rate?

Such things are fairly important. For example, did you ever notice
that Roman Numerals do not have a zero or a null? There was a half
hearted attempt at inventing zero or null (nulla), but fortunately
that failed for many centuries. Rome survived much decadence and some
really weird Emperors without much difficulty.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals>
However, no sooner than the Romans adopted the bad habits of their
conquered neighbors, which included zero and null, did their
civilzation falter and eventually die. At the least, this should be
an obvious clue that messing with zero and null should not be taken
lightly.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:38:01 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com>
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.

---
No offense but all you're really interested in is getting
unsuspecting people with good hearts to respond to your inane
trolls.

It's painfully obvious that you're not even a neophyte when it comes
to science, so your persistence in wasting everyone's time with your
foolishness indicates that you're not looking for answers, only
attention.


--
JF

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Such things are fairly important. For example, did you ever notice
> that Roman Numerals do not have a zero or a null? There was a half
> hearted attempt at inventing zero or null (nulla), but fortunately
> that failed for many centuries. Rome survived much decadence and some
> really weird Emperors without much difficulty.


There's the troubling rumour that Zero fiddled while Rome burned. It's
simply not rue.

mike