Ask a physicist anything. (8)

[Chesterton]

There are two AM/FM radios, about 100 feet apart. Both are tuned to a local music radio station, so they're playing the same song, but one radio is playing the song about 4 or 5 seconds behind the other one. I wouldn't have thought that was possible. Is there something funky with the electronics in the second radio that causes a delay in outputting the signal?

 

[pgp_protector]

There are two AM/FM radios, about 100 feet apart. Both are tuned to a local music radio station, so they're playing the same song, but one radio is playing the song about 4 or 5 seconds behind the other one. I wouldn't have thought that was possible. Is there something funky with the electronics in the second radio that causes a delay in outputting the signal?

Are they both the exact same type of radio

 

[Chesterton]

Are they both the exact same type of radio

Well I didn't check them out closely, but they're generally the same type - you know, old boom box type things.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are two AM/FM radios, about 100 feet apart. Both are tuned to a local music radio station, so they're playing the same song, but one radio is playing the song about 4 or 5 seconds behind the other one. I wouldn't have thought that was possible. Is there something funky with the electronics in the second radio that causes a delay in outputting the signal?

It probably depends on how quickly the circuitry in both boxes decodes the incoming signal. There's also the possibility that one or both is detecting a radio echo instead of the original signal.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It probably depends on how quickly the circuitry in both boxes decodes the incoming signal. There's also the possibility that one or both is detecting a radio echo instead of the original signal.

I was thinking echo, too, but for several seconds to pass, it would have to be to the moon and back several times.

Another possibility is that one is receiving the analog signal while the other is receiving a digital HD radio signal. These are often out of sync by several seconds, I guess due to the time it takes to encode the digital signal. There are products that allow broadcasters to counter this by delaying the FM signal to match. The link there says "Because there is an obligatory delay of roughly 8 seconds in the digital program encoding and decoding process present in HD Radio..."

Poking around, I see that in some cases you need to flip your radio to 'baseball mode' and turn off the HD. If you're in the stadium listening to the play-by-play, the 8 second delay in the HD broadcast can get confusing.

 

[QueSi]

I was thinking echo, too, but for several seconds to pass, it would have to be to the moon and back several times.

Another possibility is that one is receiving the analog signal while the other is receiving a digital HD radio signal. These are often out of sync by several seconds, I guess due to the time it takes to encode the digital signal. There are products that allow broadcasters to counter this by delaying the FM signal to match. The link there says "Because there is an obligatory delay of roughly 8 seconds in the digital program encoding and decoding process present in HD Radio..."

Poking around, I see that in some cases you need to flip your radio to 'baseball mode' and turn off the HD. If you're in the stadium listening to the play-by-play, the 8 second delay in the HD broadcast can get confusing.

They could more likely bounce around in our atmosphere, there are many cases of people receiving radio waves from the past...even many year old radio broadcasts.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I was thinking echo, too, but for several seconds to pass, it would have to be to the moon and back several times.

Or the Sun But I was thinking more that it would go around the world, bouncing between atmospheric layers.

Another possibility is that one is receiving the analog signal while the other is receiving a digital HD radio signal. These are often out of sync by several seconds, I guess due to the time it takes to encode the digital signal. There are products that allow broadcasters to counter this by delaying the FM signal to match. The link there says "Because there is an obligatory delay of roughly 8 seconds in the digital program encoding and decoding process present in HD Radio..."

Poking around, I see that in some cases you need to flip your radio to 'baseball mode' and turn off the HD. If you're in the stadium listening to the play-by-play, the 8 second delay in the HD broadcast can get confusing.

That's probably the cause, though if the radios are of the same make with the same settings, my money's on echo.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They could more likely bounce around in our atmosphere, there are many cases of people receiving radio waves from the past...even many year old radio broadcasts.

Many years old? Wouldn't the signal have long since dissipated?

 

[QueSi]

Many years old? Wouldn't the signal have long since dissipated?

Sure, some, but when I analyzed radar signals for the military we would collect old signals.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm thinking it must be the analog vs. HD thing because I heard it happening the same way on numerous occassions.

But - radio waves can bounce around the atmosphere and return to Earth? What exactly would they be bouncing off of?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But - radio waves can bounce around the atmosphere and return to Earth? What exactly would they be bouncing off of?

The ionosphere.

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

I had asked this question once before, quite some time ago, and I'm curious if I'm a bit ahead on reaching a silly target goal of mine.

I currently have 27,358,080,858 Blessings in my savings account.

Based on the blessings system here and the interests a person receives weekly, how long before I'll be at 100 billion?

Thanks ahead.

 

[Elendur]

I had asked this question once before, quite some time ago, and I'm curious if I'm a bit ahead on reaching a silly target goal of mine.

I currently have 27,358,080,858 Blessings in my savings account.

Based on the blessings system here and the interests a person receives weekly, how long before I'll be at 100 billion?

Thanks ahead.

1% interest per week.

27,358,080,858*1.01^n = 100,000,000,000
1.01^n = 100,000,000,000/27,358,080,858
n = log(1.01) of 100,000,000,000/27,358,080,858

n ~ 130.263

That is, you'll reach 100,000,000,000 in 131 weeks. A bit over 2,5 years.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For atoms the situation is even more miniscule. Just like we don't take account of gravity when doing calculations in atomic physics the effects of a universal expansion on an atom are utterly utterly negligible and immeasurable.

We do not take account of gravity in the atom because gravity does not apply in the micro, only electric currents control the atom, and only electric currents control the universe as well. This is why the two can not be united, because mainstream cosmology refuses to accept everything known about magnetism, the atom and electricity. Until they accept the scientific facts we will continue to live in a universe dominated by Fairie Dust.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We do not take account of gravity in the atom because gravity does not apply in the micro, only electric currents control the atom,

By all means, explain radiometric decay using only electric currents.

 

[Chesterton]

When an orbiting craft such as the space shuttle is returning to Earth, is there some reason it has to travel through Earth's atomosphere so fast, generating all the potentially dangerous friction and heat? Isn't there some way (reverse thrust or something) that it could follow a proper trajectory at a slower speed?

 

[essentialsaltes]

When an orbiting craft such as the space shuttle is returning to Earth, is there some reason it has to travel through Earth's atomosphere so fast, generating all the potentially dangerous friction and heat? Isn't there some way (reverse thrust or something) that it could follow a proper trajectory at a slower speed?

Really, it is following the 'proper trajectory'. If it slowed down appreciably, #1 it would take a lot of fuel that the shuttle doesn't have, and #2 then it would fall like a rock, rather than as an aerodynamic object.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When an orbiting craft such as the space shuttle is returning to Earth, is there some reason it has to travel through Earth's atomosphere so fast, generating all the potentially dangerous friction and heat? Isn't there some way (reverse thrust or something) that it could follow a proper trajectory at a slower speed?

The friction and heat isn't all that dangerous - there is plenty of shielding to prevent major damage, especially to the human cargo. As essentialsalts said, coming down at a slower speed would require an awful lot of fuel, which would massively increase the craft's weight.

The shuttle itself is, obviously, the 'plane-like' bit. The larger bits underneath hold the sheer volume of fuel needed to get it going upwards. You'd need another set to try to slow the craft down on descent, which adds a lot of weight, which means you need more initial launch fuel.

Short answer: huge cost for tiny gain.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When an orbiting craft such as the space shuttle is returning to Earth, is there some reason it has to travel through Earth's atomosphere so fast, generating all the potentially dangerous friction and heat? Isn't there some way (reverse thrust or something) that it could follow a proper trajectory at a slower speed?

Yes, and no. Yes, we could expend lots of fuel and slow it down enough so it came in on a slow glide path, or with enough fuel even come straight down and land like it took off. No, because we would never be able to get off the ground without rockets three times the size because the shuttle would need to be even larger to accommodate all the extra fuel and weight. That huge rocket they use to launch the shuttle consumes all its fuel to get the shuttle into space. You would need every bit as much fuel to get it back down, requiring a shuttle at least as large as the original launch rocket, requiring a launch rocket three times the size of the current one to manage the extra weight.

Of course we could build refueling stations in space and eliminate a lot of the weight problem, bringing up a little extra fuel each trip, or with another rocket launch. But the shuttle would still need to be larger to accommodate the extra fuel. Much simpler and cheaper to use heat shields for reentry into the atmosphere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

By all means, explain radiometric decay using only electric currents.

What controls the atom? The only known explanation of the atom is the standard model, upheld time after time after time. Radiometric decay is merely the release of energy, extra energy emitted by the atom to keep it in a balanced state.

Time after time mainstream has attempted to devise another model for the atom, and failed time after time.

Supersymmetry Fails Test, Forcing Physics to Seek New Ideas: Scientific American

It is called Internal Conversion btw, a well-understood electromagnetic interaction, that you like mainstream refuses to acknowledge.

Internal conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you continually seek a non-electrical explanation and fail time after time. For 100 years mainstream has searched for a non-electrical cause, and time after time failed. Your SUSY theories are worthless. Your dark matter theories nothing but Fairie Dust. The standard model fails to predict dark matter for one simple basic reason, IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Yet you still refuse to give up your Fairie Dust theories, attempting time and time again to disprove the standard model and instead time and time again uphold it.

We don't need new theories, we just need mainstream to accept the one that has been proved correct over and over. The electrical model of the atom.

Atom Models