AI4QJ wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:58:31 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
(cut)
Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has
confirmed
this, rather than leaving it to others, particularly a bunch of ham radio
operators who sometimes have their own 'theories' ;-)

Do you have some reference for Einstein's personal confirmation?
Something distinct from his having presented a theory? The truth of
the matter is for Einstein's, "light" went slower than "the speed of
light" which historically, and following his major work, was 299,796
kilometers per second. This too, illustrates a speed at which
NO-THING travels faster than (not even light).

No doubt you have some reference to Einstein's later lab work (new
theory?) that eclipsed the accuracy of measurements by Michelson in
1926. Cherenkov's observation in the late 30s would further move the
goal post.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, all you have to do is look ar the lorentz transformation, SQRT(1 -
v**2/c**2). The lorentz transformation is the basic for the special theory
of relativity. This "theory" has been confirmed by many experiments of which
I definitely could give many examples. I hope you are not challenging the
scientific credence of this "theory" which is really thought of as fact. If
I give you one example, then will you require two, then three and so on
(similar to the 'prove a negative' technique)? I don't think so. I think you
really do believe that the special theory is in fact, a fact accomplii.

Now, if I am to assume that you give high credibility to the special theory
of relativity, then you give credibility to the loretz transformation that
forms its basis (and which Michelson used himself). So let me take a big
leap and assume that you believe the lorentz transfromation has a high
probability of defining time dilation. If we can get that far, then by
simple examination, velocities greater than "c" cause the nummerical value
under the square root radical to become a negative number. As you know, this
is an impossibility because the square of any number must be a positive, in
the real world.

One experiment I will mention is an easy one, conducted at MIT. It was well
known that cosmic rays were mu mesons that have a defined decay rate when
resting still in a laboratory setting. When traveling they should have the
same decay rate.Therefore, if you know the velocity of the mu mesons and you
measure the density at the top of a high mountain, you should know how long
it takes them to reach the bottom of a mountain and by knowing the time it
takes, you should know the density (a smaller number) that you should
measure at the bottom. However, the measurements of the mu meson densities
at the bottom were nearly the same as at the top. When perhaps 40% less
should have been measured as decayed, only a very small percentage had
decayed, EXACTLY in accordance with the lorentz transformation as described
above.

By virtue of the impossibility of having a real situation of the square root
of a negative number, or time multiplied by "j" (SQRT -1), it is impossible
for v to exceed c in the real world. I will admit that it could "true" in
the "imaginary" world of "j". which is the same world as power that is not
dissipated etc. etc.. Nobody in the business really believes in tacghyons or
other such particles that allegedly exceed "c"....that is all X-files stuff
and to be dismissed by real world scientists.

AI4QJ


"...a fact accomplii." Look that one up in the dictionary.

"As you know, this
is an impossibility because the square of any number must be a positive,
in the real world." (O + j1)^2 is -1. (0 + j1) is part of the set of
complex numbers.

Anyone who won't use complex numbers in physical analysis is
going to have a hard time understanding physics texts, or, for that
matter, simple network theory.

73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH