John Clark wrote:
>
> <Spudboy100@aol.com> Wrote:
>
> >If one sends an "archived" message em signals of all types including gammma
> >ray photons could conceivably blow parts of a sustained message away.
>
> Please explain how a gamma ray photon could blow a radio photon away.
Gamma ray photon hits radio photon, cancels out energy of said photon, or merly
knocks it down to a lower frequency (or up to a higher frequency). If the signal
is frequency modulated, your signal loses resolution.
>
> >We have just had (for 40 years) the experience of receiving signals, because the
> >testing of sending signals has not been a technologically achivable option yet :)
> >i.e we have no large receiveing antena even circling the Oort cloud to confirm how well
> > signals travel.
>
> Oh come on now! We've bounced RADAR signals off the moons of Neptune, are you saying that
> when outgoing signals go a little further out they come to a screeching halt for some mysterious
> reason but incoming signals don't? You're being silly.
Ever heard of radar jamming, john? Radars also have a range that is related to
both its radiating power and the sensitivity of its receiver. At some point the
radiated signal has spread out so far (and any reflection spreads out so far
coming back) that it is too close (or below) the background radiation for that
frequency for the sensitivity of the receiver to detect a coherent signal.
>
> >As for neutrinos-they penetrate everything, almost.
>
> Yea, and they penetrate your receiver too making them almost impossible to detect.
> For about a thousand dollars you could make a device that can detect trillions of
> radio photons every second from billions of light years away. For about 10 million
> dollars you could make a device able to detect one neutrino a month from the sun.
> I can't imagine a worse medium of communication than neutrinos.
You just are not making your neutradio from the right materials, obviously.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:25 MDT