Terry Spragg wrote in
:

Radio is a myth. Telepathy is possible if you just believe?

Terry K



It's all done with "Magic Smoke". Just let the "Magic Smoke" leak out of a
radio and see if it still works. It doesn't.

I'm thinking of a number between 0 and infinity. I've directed my mind to
Terry Spragg. What number am I transmitting to you?...(c;

--
Larry

Larry wrote:

Terry Spragg wrote in
:

Radio is a myth. Telepathy is possible if you just believe?

Terry K

It's all done with "Magic Smoke". Just let the "Magic Smoke" leak out of a
radio and see if it still works. It doesn't.

I'm thinking of a number between 0 and infinity. I've directed my mind to
Terry Spragg. What number am I transmitting to you?...(c;


I have been a radio technician for fourty years. Your explanation is
demonstrably wrong.

Furthermor, you are no longer sending. Hmm, perhaps I can sense what
it was, nontheless. I must put on my time travel tin hat and make a
few adjustments...

Obviously, the only one worth worrying about was 1. If you can
conceive of infinity, you can divide one into an infinite number of
smaller numbers. If you consider that result, whatever number you
thought of will be expressed there. I can see a part of it, now.

Hmmm, perhaps if I had a silver hat?

It is strange you should ask, because I have long believed that the
difference between zero and one is infinity, and that infinity
actually equals zero, since the two are both incalculable, except in
non-real integer numbers. Real numbers are never actually integral,
since for instance there is never going to be, as an example, even
one perfect apple. One apple would actually be the major part of a
perfect apple, but would lack the perfecting part, or have something
extra included.

Besides, it depends on what base numbering system you use, and since
you did not specify, all number based systems must be included in
the consideration of the list of possible numbers. That includes
Unary, binary, trinary, octal, onohexadecimal, etc, etc, infinitely,
all the way out to number base infinity -1.

I have no problem with multiple universes, even a very large number
of them. "Science's" latest theory is that multiple universes could
occur at distances just further than light can travel over the real
maximum possible age of the universe, which is undefinable, and
cannot be measured in years until after the time when the earth
began to orbit the sun, and before it stops doing so.

I seem to recall 298 billion light years apart, for some reason.

Logic uses only the number one (and not-one), since the perfect
vacuum of zero can not actually exist, as does infinity not actually
exist, except as a numerical concept that cannot actually be
calculated, at least by us.

This means that in the "infinity" of a "perfect vacuum" before
"creation" or the big bang, whatever, there could not be a perfectly
smooth lack of any kind of reference, since how could you measure it
all to ensure it was a perfect vacuum? Nor could it be so if you
were there to measure it.

If it contained even the smallest flaw, or not, that one flaw, or
the lack of it, would still be infinitely divisible, and establishes
one concept mechanism of creation.

Furthermore, logic dictates that whatever actually existed,
anywhere, anywhen, will always have existed, and will always have
existed. (That's right enough, can't say it any other ways, as I
cannot control time, or even it's expression, perfectly!)

Our universe is limited in that we cannot control or even define
mass, position, charge, velocity and direction absolutely and
simultaneously, according to Heisenburg. (SP?) Nor can we do very
much at all with time without using any good physical reference,
which is undefinable without including all of creation, as "the
ground state" does not exist, being undefinable in real terms,
because it is unmeasurable if it does exist, even undiscernable,
either in the zeroeth vacuum of pre-creation, or after creation of
the universe.

My math teacher, (all maths is pure logic) Mr. Cook, said he felt
that creation was a flawed concept, and that he had no problem
envisioning a universe that always has existed and always will.
Sounds a little narrow minded, to me, and he should have thought
better, since we can only see 3 dimensions, and there are more,
where zero might actually be definable in real terms, as might infinity.

We live in flatland, a place of limited discerning.

Without the ability to travel freely in time and defy Heisenburg,
such cannot be observed or measured, so it cannot truely exist,
except as a theoretical concept, which is what some have the
temerity to say is the true and complete definition of God.

Nor could we expect to be able to define God, except as a concept
that most cannot even agree on. Nor should we dare to tell God what
He is.

I believe that God may comfortably be referred to as "That which has
ultimate power over us." This concept may be agreeable between
perhaps two thinking people, but the larger the crowd, the less
likely any agreement will come to be.

We could probably agree that because of the logic of the universe,
we need air and gravity to sustain our bodies, and this one
agreement constitutes an ultimately all powerful influence on us.
How we maintain our minds once the discussion deepens is the reason
why we have a commandment that says approximately, "Thou shall not
use the Lord's name in vain."

We should ask only God questions about Him, and silently, for the
sake of peace, and truth. (Different strokes taught by different
folks?) He answers silently in your heart, if you are humble enough
to listen. When you are ready to listen, you will have ears to hear.

The Golden rule is not a law, but an observation of the way things
average out.

Did you really want to know?

If you were a betting man, and honourable, you would admit this
answer is correct. What were the stakes?

Terry K

QLF Please!

"Terry Spragg" wrote in message
...
Larry wrote:

Terry Spragg wrote in
:

Radio is a myth. Telepathy is possible if you just believe?

Terry K

It's all done with "Magic Smoke". Just let the "Magic Smoke" leak out
of a
radio and see if it still works. It doesn't.

I'm thinking of a number between 0 and infinity. I've directed my mind
to
Terry Spragg. What number am I transmitting to you?...(c;


I have been a radio technician for fourty years. Your explanation is
demonstrably wrong.

Furthermor, you are no longer sending. Hmm, perhaps I can sense what
it was, nontheless. I must put on my time travel tin hat and make a
few adjustments...

Obviously, the only one worth worrying about was 1. If you can
conceive of infinity, you can divide one into an infinite number of
smaller numbers. If you consider that result, whatever number you
thought of will be expressed there. I can see a part of it, now.

Hmmm, perhaps if I had a silver hat?

It is strange you should ask, because I have long believed that the
difference between zero and one is infinity, and that infinity
actually equals zero, since the two are both incalculable, except in
non-real integer numbers. Real numbers are never actually integral,
since for instance there is never going to be, as an example, even
one perfect apple. One apple would actually be the major part of a
perfect apple, but would lack the perfecting part, or have something
extra included.

Besides, it depends on what base numbering system you use, and since
you did not specify, all number based systems must be included in
the consideration of the list of possible numbers. That includes
Unary, binary, trinary, octal, onohexadecimal, etc, etc, infinitely,
all the way out to number base infinity -1.

I have no problem with multiple universes, even a very large number
of them. "Science's" latest theory is that multiple universes could
occur at distances just further than light can travel over the real
maximum possible age of the universe, which is undefinable, and
cannot be measured in years until after the time when the earth
began to orbit the sun, and before it stops doing so.

I seem to recall 298 billion light years apart, for some reason.

Logic uses only the number one (and not-one), since the perfect
vacuum of zero can not actually exist, as does infinity not actually
exist, except as a numerical concept that cannot actually be
calculated, at least by us.

This means that in the "infinity" of a "perfect vacuum" before
"creation" or the big bang, whatever, there could not be a perfectly
smooth lack of any kind of reference, since how could you measure it
all to ensure it was a perfect vacuum? Nor could it be so if you
were there to measure it.

If it contained even the smallest flaw, or not, that one flaw, or
the lack of it, would still be infinitely divisible, and establishes
one concept mechanism of creation.

Furthermore, logic dictates that whatever actually existed,
anywhere, anywhen, will always have existed, and will always have
existed. (That's right enough, can't say it any other ways, as I
cannot control time, or even it's expression, perfectly!)

Our universe is limited in that we cannot control or even define
mass, position, charge, velocity and direction absolutely and
simultaneously, according to Heisenburg. (SP?) Nor can we do very
much at all with time without using any good physical reference,
which is undefinable without including all of creation, as "the
ground state" does not exist, being undefinable in real terms,
because it is unmeasurable if it does exist, even undiscernable,
either in the zeroeth vacuum of pre-creation, or after creation of
the universe.

My math teacher, (all maths is pure logic) Mr. Cook, said he felt
that creation was a flawed concept, and that he had no problem
envisioning a universe that always has existed and always will.
Sounds a little narrow minded, to me, and he should have thought
better, since we can only see 3 dimensions, and there are more,
where zero might actually be definable in real terms, as might infinity.

We live in flatland, a place of limited discerning.

Without the ability to travel freely in time and defy Heisenburg,
such cannot be observed or measured, so it cannot truely exist,
except as a theoretical concept, which is what some have the
temerity to say is the true and complete definition of God.

Nor could we expect to be able to define God, except as a concept
that most cannot even agree on. Nor should we dare to tell God what
He is.

I believe that God may comfortably be referred to as "That which has
ultimate power over us." This concept may be agreeable between
perhaps two thinking people, but the larger the crowd, the less
likely any agreement will come to be.

We could probably agree that because of the logic of the universe,
we need air and gravity to sustain our bodies, and this one
agreement constitutes an ultimately all powerful influence on us.
How we maintain our minds once the discussion deepens is the reason
why we have a commandment that says approximately, "Thou shall not
use the Lord's name in vain."

We should ask only God questions about Him, and silently, for the
sake of peace, and truth. (Different strokes taught by different
folks?) He answers silently in your heart, if you are humble enough
to listen. When you are ready to listen, you will have ears to hear.

The Golden rule is not a law, but an observation of the way things
average out.

Did you really want to know?

If you were a betting man, and honourable, you would admit this
answer is correct. What were the stakes?

Terry K

"Doug" wrote in
ink.net:

QLF Please!


I'm just please to smoke out someone who doesn't type with one finger and
make one line responses.....(c;

--
Larry
QSL DE W4CSC QRU QRV QRM QRT

Larry wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
ink.net:


QLF Please!



I'm just please to smoke out someone who doesn't type with one finger and
make one line responses.....(c;

WTF does QLF mean?

Terry K

Terry Spragg wrote in
:

WTF does QLF mean?

Terry K


LF = Left Foot! QLF "Send with your left foot"/"Are you sending with your
left foot?" I have an old friend who can send 10-12 wpm with a vibroplex
between the toes of his left foot! He spent WW2 on diesel subs as chief
radioman in the Pacific. It's a learned trait...(c;

--
Larry

Terry Spragg wrote:

WTF does QLF mean?


QLF is not listed in ACP-131, for the most part it has no assigned,
internationally recognized, meaning.

Back in my Navy days the stock reply, when queried about an unknown Q or
Z signal, would have been "It means send a series of LIMA with FOXTROT
separators".

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA - jackerbes at adelphia dot net
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine.com)

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 08:11:18 -0400, Jack Erbes
wrote:

Terry Spragg wrote:

WTF does QLF mean?


QLF is not listed in ACP-131, for the most part it has no assigned,
internationally recognized, meaning.

Back in my Navy days the stock reply, when queried about an unknown Q or
Z signal, would have been "It means send a series of LIMA with FOXTROT
separators".


it's a joke among hams...refers to someone who's got a bad fist.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field