RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)
-   -   Water burns! (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/119868-water-burns.html)

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 02:18 PM

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

Michael Coslo June 12th 07 03:12 PM

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 -

Michael Coslo June 12th 07 03:33 PM

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 -

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 03:34 PM

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


Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 03:39 PM

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

Dave Heil June 12th 07 03:46 PM

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

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 03:58 PM

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

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 04:10 PM

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

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 04:14 PM

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

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 04:38 PM

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

John Smith I June 12th 07 05:10 PM

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

Mike Kaliski June 12th 07 05:36 PM

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



Jim Kelley June 12th 07 06:36 PM

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


Jim Kelley June 12th 07 07:07 PM

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



Jimmie D June 12th 07 07:25 PM

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



Jimmie D June 12th 07 07:36 PM

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



Jimmie D June 12th 07 08:01 PM

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.




Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 08:04 PM

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

Michael Coslo June 12th 07 08:12 PM

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 -

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 08:22 PM

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

Michael Coslo June 12th 07 08:38 PM

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 -

Gene Fuller June 12th 07 08:47 PM

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



Jimmie D June 12th 07 08:56 PM

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



Jimmie D June 12th 07 09:01 PM

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.



Michael Coslo June 12th 07 09:06 PM

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 -

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 09:12 PM

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

Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 09:16 PM

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

John Smith I June 12th 07 10:46 PM

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

Jimmie D June 12th 07 10:48 PM

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



John Smith I June 12th 07 10:50 PM

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

Jimmie D June 12th 07 10:54 PM

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




Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 10:55 PM

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

Mike Kaliski June 12th 07 10:55 PM

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



Cecil Moore[_2_] June 12th 07 10:57 PM

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

Mike Kaliski June 12th 07 11:07 PM

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



Tom Ring June 13th 07 01:58 AM

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

Tom Ring June 13th 07 02:20 AM

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

Mike Kaliski June 13th 07 02:31 AM

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



Mike Lucas June 13th 07 03:18 AM

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



Tom Ring June 13th 07 04:45 AM

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 05:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com