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

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

AM = k*(1+f(t))*cos(w*t+theta) Eqn. 1

where k is the desired carrier amplitude
f(t) is the modulating signal, scaled so that negative peaks are
greater than -1
w is the radian carrier frequency
t is time
theta is whatever carrier phase offset you want; a constant.

Now you go figure it out. Is there anything in your incomprehensible
problem statement that can't be accommodated by Eqn. 1? Actually
accomplishing it is left as an exercise for you to spend the rest of
your life on.

Radium <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 (E-Mail Removed)
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