Water burns!
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
Jimmie D wrote:
Is there any other kind of nothingness than absolute nothingness?

"nothingness" is defined as empty space. It's
difficult to come up with appropriate words.

Not when you are talking about physics.

In physics even empty space is something..

that which is beyound the universe is not empty space, it is just nothing.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
I don't see nature doing anything which suggests an intelligence ...

Do you see homo sapiens "doing anything which
suggests an intelligence?" :-)

I once picked up a book in the university
library entitled: "Is There Intelligent
Life in the Universe". One of the chapters
was: "Is There Intelligent Life on Earth?"
I assume that question is still open. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
Mike Kaliski wrote:

[snip]


One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of
material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually
fired
into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the
structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material
becomes
completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next
photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the
material
and
a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same
speed
and
in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is
restored
and energy is conserved.

But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of
light
and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is
emitted.
The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the
absorbed
photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears
to
have
been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but
no
laws have been broken.

A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen.

Mike G0ULI

Mike,

You had me fooled. It appeared that you might actually know something.
But
that response bent the needle on my bull**** meter.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Actually that response is very credable, It is analogous to what happens
when electrons travel in a wire. Put an electron in one end of a wire
and
one pops out the other end almost instantaneously even though the actual
speed of electrons flowing ththrough the wire is very, very slow.

Jimmie


Jimmie,

No particular argument about electrons in a wire. However, the stuff
proposed by Mike bears little resemblance to the wire.

How about:

Atoms absorbing photons one by one, i.e. one per atom in a solid?
Doesn't match anything I have ever learned.

Material becomes saturated with photons? What is this, a bag of marbles?

Shockwave propagates faster than speed of light? (Yes, I am familiar
with Cerenkov radiation. Not interesting in this context.)

Emitted photons contains exactly the same properties as the absorbed
photon? How do they get absorbed yet remember everything? How do they
know when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Gene

Fair comment.

What I was proposing was a way of imagining how such a process could happen.
Such a simplistic explanation is almost certainly completely false. I was
trying to illustrate how superluminal phenomena could exist within our
current laws of physics but using as yet unrecognised means of propagation.
It might have been equally valid to state that certain photons upon hitting
an impervious barrier, drop out of our universe, traverse some unknown
dimension, and pop back into existence on the other side of the barrier.
That might have been a little more difficult for people to reconcile with
processes they already know and understand.

It is a notoriously difficult problem to detect and measure fast moving
phenomena with little or no mass. The experiments to capture and identify
the different types of neutrinos are a prime example.

I suspect that neither you, me or anybody else currently has a completely
credible explanation for the observed superluminal phenomena.

Regards

Mike G0ULI

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:
In physics even empty space is something..

But that is only recently. It once was nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
...

Is there any other kind of nothingness than absolute nothingness?

Jimmie

A philosophical point.

Just as there are various degrees of infinity, an infinity of odd numbers,
an infinity of even numbers, an infinity of fractions between zero and one,
allegedly an infinite series of numbers after the decimal point of Pi, an
infinity of infinities...

Consider there could be various degrees of nothingness, vacuum - absence of
atoms, absolute zero - absence of heat, absolute nothingness - the area
'outside' the universe. Words are inadequate to express such concepts.

Mike G0ULI

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
snip
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in physics
have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth is a sphere,
the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all considered
nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp on reality while
still being able to ponder the things that make for truly great break
throughs in science.

Jimmie



Which require one really important thing, proof, in the form of
documented facts that are reproducible by others. They are missing
here. If it was done in 93 or 95 or whatever (I found more than I date
for the claim on the net), there has certainly been plenty of time for
someone else to confirm the results. Especially considering how much
research is done in precisely this area.

"This area" being making EM waves go faster or slower that normal in a
given physical situation, and even stopping them for short periods of time.

tom
K0TAR

Water burns!
 

Tom Ring wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
snip
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in
physics have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth
is a sphere, the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all
considered nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp
on reality while still being able to ponder the things that make for
truly great break throughs in science.

Jimmie


Which require one really important thing, proof, in the form of
documented facts that are reproducible by others. They are missing
here. If it was done in 93 or 95 or whatever (I found more than I date
for the claim on the net), there has certainly been plenty of time for
someone else to confirm the results. Especially considering how much
research is done in precisely this area.

"This area" being making EM waves go faster or slower that normal in a
given physical situation, and even stopping them for short periods of time.

tom
K0TAR

My apologies for typos, as I am using a new news client and it does
replies in an absurdly small typeface. When I make a mistake, I can't
see it.

tom
K0TAR

Water burns!
 

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
snip
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in
physics
have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth is a
sphere,
the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all considered
nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp on reality
while
still being able to ponder the things that make for truly great break
throughs in science.

Jimmie



Which require one really important thing, proof, in the form of
documented facts that are reproducible by others. They are missing
here. If it was done in 93 or 95 or whatever (I found more than I date
for the claim on the net), there has certainly been plenty of time for
someone else to confirm the results. Especially considering how much
research is done in precisely this area.

"This area" being making EM waves go faster or slower that normal in a
given physical situation, and even stopping them for short periods of
time.

tom
K0TAR

Tom,

These experiments are time consuming, tricky (very sensitive to external
influences) and expensive to conduct, yielding results close to the limits
of what is measurable. Unfortunately this isn't the sort of research that
can be conducted by an amateur in a shed in the back yard. Unless commercial
applications for experimental findings are found, funds are rapidly switched
to other areas of research looking for a new discovery that might make a
profit.

It's just the way that capitalism works.

Mike G0ULI

Water burns!
 

"Mike Kaliski" wrote
These experiments are time consuming, tricky (very sensitive to external
influences) and expensive to conduct, yielding results close to the
limits
of what is measurable. Unfortunately this isn't the sort of research that
can be conducted by an amateur in a shed in the back yard. Unless
commercial
applications for experimental findings are found, funds are rapidly
switched
to other areas of research looking for a new discovery that might make a
profit.

It's just the way that capitalism works.

Mike G0ULI

This is EXACTLY why it Art is having such a difficult time with his Gaussian
antenna project. I think it highly unlikely that aluminium foil on tapered
fish-poles
will offer the repeatability that Gaussian equilibrium demands, since the
skin depth
is so large in ALL units. Perhaps if he made better models available, those
of us
who have a true desire to see his work progress would be able to contribute
something to advancement of antenna history.

Mike W5CHR

Water burns!
 

Mike Kaliski wrote:
"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
snip
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in
physics
have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth is a
sphere,
the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all considered
nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp on reality
while
still being able to ponder the things that make for truly great break
throughs in science.

Jimmie


Which require one really important thing, proof, in the form of
documented facts that are reproducible by others. They are missing
here. If it was done in 93 or 95 or whatever (I found more than I date
for the claim on the net), there has certainly been plenty of time for
someone else to confirm the results. Especially considering how much
research is done in precisely this area.

"This area" being making EM waves go faster or slower that normal in a
given physical situation, and even stopping them for short periods of
time.
tom
K0TAR

Tom,

These experiments are time consuming, tricky (very sensitive to external
influences) and expensive to conduct, yielding results close to the limits
of what is measurable. Unfortunately this isn't the sort of research that
can be conducted by an amateur in a shed in the back yard. Unless commercial
applications for experimental findings are found, funds are rapidly switched
to other areas of research looking for a new discovery that might make a
profit.

It's just the way that capitalism works.

Mike G0ULI



And yet they are done all the time by Universities and commercial labs.
Sorry, I don't buy your excuse. If you were a slashdot.org regular,
you would have noticed that reports on exactly this subject come through
every 2 weeks to a month. And many other science news sources report
the same events.

Again, I don't buy your excuse.

tom
K0TAR