|
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
John Smith imagines a caveman shading a fire (newly developed technology) with a palm frond, jumping in glee, pointing, and declaring, "Look, I am modulating light! I just wonder what I can do with a campfire and a blanket?" Strangely enough, since the use of fire seems to date back some 790,000 years, that "caveman" may not have been a homo sapien. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:21:32 -0700, John Smith I wrote: Jim Higgins wrote: ... This invention will never withstand strict scientific review because it will be trivial to demonstrate that it doesn't produce more power than is input in the form of RF. No net excess power produced means no new power source. ... At no time did I ever think it was over unity. The law of conservation of energy is just another law awaiting to be "broken", i.e. a new "law" found which acts to the contrary ... after experiencing the insanity of quantum physics, it leaves ones belief system shattered! If quantum physics leaves your belief system shattered, then I'd have to say you don't understand quantum physics on even a superficial level... or else you're exaggerating your reaction to it. The math is a real bitch, but the generalized concepts are easily grasped by those who understand classical physics. But that aside, the real point is that quantum physics doesn't leave classical physics as a broken law to be tossed aside. NASA will continue to use classical physics to plot trajectories to the Moon or to Mars. perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken". - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
How about the "Theory of Evolution"? Is it right or wrong? How about all the JFK "Conspiracy Theories"? Are they all "logically self-consistent"? Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of lumping the two together. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
John, N9JG wrote:
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have "communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. From: http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/...es_communicate --Quote: How do entangled particles communicate? One of the zanier notions in the plenty zany world of quantum mechanics is that a pair of subatomic particles can sometimes become “entangled.” This means the fate of one instantly affects the other, no matter how far apart they are. It’s such a bizarre phenomenon that Einstein dissed the idea in the 1930s as “spooky action at a distance,” saying it showed that the developing model of the atomic world needed rethinking. But it turns out that the universe is spooky after all. In 1997, scientists separated a pair of entangled photons by shooting them through fiber-optic cables to two villages 6 miles apart. Tipping one into a particular quantum state forced the other into the opposite state less than five-trillionths of a second later, or *nearly 7 million times faster than light* could travel between the two. Of course, according to relativity, nothing travels faster than the speed of light - not even information between particles. Even the best theories to explain how entanglement gets around this problem seem preposterous. One, for example, speculates that signals are shot back through time. Ultimately, the answer is bound to be unnerving: According to a famous doctrine called Bell’s Inequality, for entanglement to square with relativity, either we have no free will or reality is an illusion. Some choice. --end quote 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Michael Coslo wrote:
perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken". We could start with: Where did all that energy come from that caused the Big Bang? Why did it wait until the time of the Big Bang to explode? How long was a second before the Big Bang? :-) -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken". We could start with: Where did all that energy come from that caused the Big Bang? Why did it wait until the time of the Big Bang to explode? How long was a second before the Big Bang? :-) You might add: What set it off? Where did all of that matter come from? Where did all of the empty space come from? Dave K8MN |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: For instance: The laws of physics based on non-empty space (ether) were discarded only to be revived in different form by the discovery that empty space is far from empty. This was more akin to replacing the wheel covers on a car than it was to replacing the whole car. More like taking away the entire car, replacing the wheel covers, and then bringing the car back. Pre-1887 1. There is a substance filling empty space. 1887 2. There is nothing filling empty space. Present 3. There is a quantum structure filling empty space. Incidentally, the shortening and lengthening effects that Michelson and Morley were looking for were actually there but rendered undetectable by relativity effects of which they were, of course, ignorant in 1887. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Michael Coslo wrote:
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of lumping the two together. My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-) And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be, capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-) How about "string theory", something that cannot even be tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing string theories - all "logically self-consistent"???? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Empty and nothing are synonyms. Hardly! A box can be empty, but a box isn't nothing. I should have said that the definition of "empty" is "containing nothing". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Dave Heil wrote:
You might add: What set it off? Chaotic conditions? One last electron encountering the singularity? Where did all of that matter come from? A small plasma singularity? Where did all of the empty space come from? It's not empty, i.e. not absolute nothing. Dark matter? Dark energy? Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than a Supernova. Heavy elements are created during a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created during the Big Bang? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Michael Coslo wrote:
... Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of lumping the two together. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - I believe "theory of evolution" is highly correct. Ever toss a hand full of metal, glass and plastic into a mud puddle--come back a few million years later and start digging up microwaves, cell phones, mp3 players, etc.? If not, then you have a faith greater than it takes to have faith in aliens or God ... our existence is about as strange a mystery as you will ever find. I just love those with over-simplified explanations ... occams' razor seems to dull a bit on this problem. JS |
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... Dave Heil wrote: You might add: What set it off? Chaotic conditions? One last electron encountering the singularity? Where did all of that matter come from? A small plasma singularity? Where did all of the empty space come from? It's not empty, i.e. not absolute nothing. Dark matter? Dark energy? Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than a Supernova. Heavy elements are created during a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created during the Big Bang? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Cecil Heavy elements are created from precursors that exist prior to the supernova. All fusion reactions up to Iron result in the creation of energy. This is what keeps a star from collapsing under its gravitational mass. Once a star reaches the stage where a given proportion of the core is composed of Iron, not enough energy is given off to prevent the star from a catastrophic gravitational collapse. It is the energy from the gravitational collapse that creates the heavy elements and if the star is big enough, a nova or supernova. I seem to recall that the big bang by comparison resulted in an initial state that was composed of something in the order of 97% Hydrogen and 3% Helium. The elements condensed from an expanding cloud of sub atomic particles as temperatures (or energy levels) dropped with the expansion. By the time individual atoms had condensed, the particles must have been too far apart to become involved in further fusion reactions until they coalesced under gravity to form stars. Each new generation of stars contains a higher level of Helium (and heavier elements) than the last and this is used as an indicator for how old a star or galaxy cluster might be. Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than a Supernova. Ya think? Heavy elements are created during a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created during the Big Bang? How about this: The bigger the explosion the smaller the pieces. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: Why did it wait until the time of the Big Bang to explode? It didn't. The Big Bang was originally scheduled to explode the following week. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: Tom, The speed of light in air is not vastly different from the speed of light in a vacuum. If photons were apparently travelling at 1.7 times the speed of light in air, they clearly must have been exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. This result was observed using visible light. Current theory is usually quoted as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccum. It is probably more correct to state that objects with mass cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons, having no mass, are not necessarily subject to this rule and seem to be observed travelling at superluminal velocity under certain very specific conditions. If the photons are tunnelling and travelling faster than light in a vacuum, it does not necessarily mean that any laws have been broken. 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 |
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Jimmie D wrote: the problem isnt with believing space can be empty but believing that space is nothing.. Empty and nothing are synonyms. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Nope, they are not. And the physicist that explanined it to me made me wish I had never brought up the subject becuse I had planned other things for the evening than her 4 hr explanation. From what I got of it nothing is what exist beyound the boundries of the universe and empty space would have to exist within the universe. Jimmie |
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . .. John, N9JG wrote: 1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have "communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. From: http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/...es_communicate --Quote: How do entangled particles communicate? One of the zanier notions in the plenty zany world of quantum mechanics is that a pair of subatomic particles can sometimes become “entangled.” This means the fate of one instantly affects the other, no matter how far apart they are. It’s such a bizarre phenomenon that Einstein dissed the idea in the 1930s as “spooky action at a distance,” saying it showed that the developing model of the atomic world needed rethinking. But it turns out that the universe is spooky after all. In 1997, scientists separated a pair of entangled photons by shooting them through fiber-optic cables to two villages 6 miles apart. Tipping one into a particular quantum state forced the other into the opposite state less than five-trillionths of a second later, or *nearly 7 million times faster than light* could travel between the two. Of course, according to relativity, nothing travels faster than the speed of light - not even information between particles. Even the best theories to explain how entanglement gets around this problem seem preposterous. One, for example, speculates that signals are shot back through time. Ultimately, the answer is bound to be unnerving: According to a famous doctrine called Bell’s Inequality, for entanglement to square with relativity, either we have no free will or reality is an illusion. Some choice. --end quote 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Very interesting if you limit yourself to a three dimensional universe. In a 3 dimensional universe these particle may be adjacent to each other. |
Water burns!
Jimmie D wrote:
And the physicist that explanined it to me made me wish I had never brought up the subject becuse I had planned other things for the evening than her 4 hr explanation. From what I got of it nothing is what exist beyound the boundries of the universe and empty space would have to exist within the universe. Outside the universe would be "absolute nothingness" as opposed to nothing being in an empty bucket within the universe. It certainly depends upon the definition of "nothing" that is being used -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken". We could start with: Where did all that energy come from that caused the Big Bang? Why did it wait until the time of the Big Bang to explode? How long was a second before the Big Bang? :-) Well we could Cecil. But before we do, It would be cool to ruminate on a universe that has no restrictions on energy. If energy isn't conserved, that would be the case. Your big bang questions only hint at the possibilities. Arthur C Clarke had some interesting thoughts on some of the possible issues from just zero point energy extraction - which does not violate the conservation of energy. See the heat crisis from the space oddysey books. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
Jimmie D wrote:
Very interesting if you limit yourself to a three dimensional universe. In a 3 dimensional universe these particle may be adjacent to each other. Or as the quantum physicists say: "Reality is non-local". Ever read, "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Heinlein? Valentine Michael Smith sent bad people into that 4th dimension. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of lumping the two together. My Southern Baptist Mother (rest her soul) always said that the theory of evolution was an atheist conspiracy. :-) A wonderful lady I'm sure. My mother also did not believe in evolution. She always said "Man did not descend from Apes" She was right on that count, but wrong about evolution. The theory has stood the test of time. So many other concepts and measurements corroborate with it, and none disprove it. If it is wrong, then most of what we know about the universe is wrong. There will always be details that may indicate that something here or there needs an update. But the basic concept and most of the details has survived much more rigorous testing than the reference material of those who declare it wrong. And it seems that the theory of evolution has been proved not to be 100% correct. Man is already, or soon will be, capable of creating designer species. That's certainly not random selection. How does manufacturing human blood within a pig's body fit with the theory of evolution? :-) I'm not sure how that disproves anything regarding the theory. In fact, those things we are tinkering with are just an extension of the theory in the end. Where the pressure to mutate - and therefore change - comes from is not necessarily important i the end, but say we're talking about sheep with human organs in them. Ever wonder what happens to the embryo's and young ones that didn't have the right attributes? How about "string theory", something that cannot even be tested? Last I heard, there were seven or so competing string theories - all "logically self-consistent"???? Lots more than that, even. More flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I can't really speculate a lot on string theory. String always seemed like a "just so" story to me. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
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 |
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... Jimmie D wrote: And the physicist that explanined it to me made me wish I had never brought up the subject becuse I had planned other things for the evening than her 4 hr explanation. From what I got of it nothing is what exist beyound the boundries of the universe and empty space would have to exist within the universe. Outside the universe would be "absolute nothingness" as opposed to nothing being in an empty bucket within the universe. It certainly depends upon the definition of "nothing" that is being used -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Is there any other kind of nothingness than absolute nothingness? Jimmie |
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... Dave Heil wrote: You might add: What set it off? Chaotic conditions? One last electron encountering the singularity? Where did all of that matter come from? A small plasma singularity? Where did all of the empty space come from? It's not empty, i.e. not absolute nothing. Dark matter? Dark energy? Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than a Supernova. Heavy elements are created during a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created during the Big Bang? -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Perhaps the universe existed pretty much thhe way it does now before the Big Bang, Maybe the Big bang is just one niverse passing from one deminsion to another. |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: ... Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of lumping the two together. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - I believe "theory of evolution" is highly correct. Ever toss a hand full of metal, glass and plastic into a mud puddle--come back a few million years later and start digging up microwaves, cell phones, mp3 players, etc.? If not, then you have a faith greater than it takes to have faith in aliens or God ... our existence is about as strange a mystery as you will ever find. I just love those with over-simplified explanations ... occams' razor seems to dull a bit on this problem. Did you mean over-simplified explanations (in this case posing as a question) such as?: Ever toss a hand full of metal, glass and plastic into a mud puddle--come back a few million years later and start digging up microwaves, cell phones, mp3 players, etc.? Is a specious argument, for some folks. it is wrong for all folks. If you just want to say "God did it", then have at it. No further explanation is required, and your argument is noted. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Water burns!
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. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jimmie D wrote:
Perhaps the universe existed pretty much thhe way it does now before the Big Bang, Maybe the Big bang is just one niverse passing from one deminsion to another. Or maybe it is simply a self-generating fractal. :-) http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Michael Coslo wrote:
... Is a specious argument, for some folks. it is wrong for all folks. If you just want to say "God did it", then have at it. No further explanation is required, and your argument is noted. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Does nature have a conscious? What purpose does man serve nature? What "pressures" caused nature to create and develop man? I don't see nature doing anything which suggests an intelligence ... I don't see chance and probability constructing highly complex "anythings." Your logic escapes me ... JS |
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 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 |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Or maybe it is simply a self-generating fractal. :-) http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Or, maybe I am just imagining all this, and y'all don't even exist! Just a "brain in a bottle" on some aliens shelf in his lab! Hey, don't get me wrong, it could be worse, at least it keeps me from being bored. ;-) Regards, JS |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com