wrote:
I doubt that you've ever accidentally omitted an adjective in your
life.

Of course, I don't consider myself to be omniscient. The
difference between you and me is that you put your faith
in science while I am skeptical of virtually everything.
IMO, Newton's laws of physics were proved wrong and their
application had to be limited as a result. If Newton had
been informed about seconds getting longer and mass
increasing as velocity is increased, he no doubt would
have rejected such as complete nonsense.

Again, how do you explain the fact that entangled particles
violate the theory that nothing can happen faster than the
speed of light? Oh yeah, I forgot - simply re-define the
problem out of existence. Those particles are communicating
faster than light but there is no information flow (yet).
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.


It is your assertion that there is an effect with dominates Doppler
shifting on any scale?


No, primarily on a macro (non-local) scale.

So then, red shifts greater than 1, or 2, or 3, or....? Which?

Let's
say you had a cable stretching from our galaxy to
a distant red-shifted galaxy. What would be your
conclusion if the red-shift continued without
the cable breaking?

It must be one of those Bungee cables. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG

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.

If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous and
rich.

John, N9JG

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
[snip]
One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light yet the communications between entangled
particles obviously travels faster than the speed of
light.
[snip]
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the most
direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects.

The famous relativity experiment that allowed men to
"see" a star "hidden" by the sun is a good example.

My point was that man's imperfect "laws of physics"
are often violated and have to be revised or discarded
in favor of a new set of laws of physics. If the
scientific progress over the next 1000 years
equals that of the last 1000 years, most of what
we think we know now will no doubt be revised or
proved incorrect and discarded.

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

the problem isnt with believing space can be empty but believing that space
is nothing..

"John, N9JG" wrote in message
et...
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.

If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous
and
rich.

John, N9JG

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
[snip]
One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light yet the communications between entangled
particles obviously travels faster than the speed of
light.
[snip]
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com



John & Cecil

Extract from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/newtech2.html

The Chiao Group at Berkeley is investigating superluminality. Ryan Frewin,
Renee George, Deborah Paulson have a web page about superluminality, in
which they say: "...

About ten years ago, Steven Chu and Stephen Wong at AT&T Bell Labs in New
Jersey measured superluminal velocities for light pulses traveling through
an absorbing material ...
In 1991, Anedio Ranfagni et al at the National Institute for Research into
Electromagnetic Waves in Florence, Italy measured the speed of propagation
for microwaves through a "forbidden zone" inside square metal w aveguides.
The reported values were initially less than the speed of light, until the
experiment was repeated in 1992 with thicker barriers ...
Also in 1992, Gunter Nimtz and colleagues at the University of Cologne
reported superluminal speeds for microwaves traversing a similar forbidden
region ...
In 1993, the most solid experimental evidence came from Chiao and his
colleagues Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat at the University of California
at Berkeley. Using the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer ... they were able to
measure the tunneling times of visible light. According to Brown, "the
researchers found that the photons that tunneled their way through the
optical filter arrived 1.5 femtoseconds sooner than the ones that traveled
through air. The tunneling photons seemed to have traveled at 1.7 times the
speed of light" ...
Similar experiments by Ferenc Krauss et al at the Technical University in
Vienna in October of 1994 "strongly suggest that as they progressively
increased the thickness of the barrier the tunneling time saturated toward a
maximum value" ...
In March of 1995, at a colloquium in Snowbird, Utah, Nimtz announced that he
had sent a signal across twelve centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed
of light . The signal was a modulation in the frequency of his microwave
source matching Mozart's 40th Symphony ... Even Chiao and his colleagues
were adamantly opposed to describing Nimtz' work as the sending of a signal
....
Why was the bar of Mozart's symphony not a signal? ... If a wave packet's
shape upon incidence is smooth and well- defined, it is a straightforward
calculation to determine its shape after transmission. Because the final
shape can be mathematically determined ... most scientists would not
consider a smoothly varying function to be a signal. ... Chiao and Steinberg
were quick to point out that Nimtz' symphony was not a signal, but simply a
smoothly varying pulse. .. A sudden change in the shape would still travel
at only light speed, and only a sudden change, according to Chiao, could be
regarded as a signal ... ".

Clearly some things do appear to travel faster than the speed of light in a
vacuum. The jury appears to be out as to whether any practical use can be
made of the phenomenon.

Mike G0ULI

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
I doubt that you've ever accidentally omitted an adjective in your
life.

Of course, I don't consider myself to be omniscient. The
difference between you and me is that you put your faith
in science while I am skeptical of virtually everything.
IMO, Newton's laws of physics were proved wrong and their
application had to be limited as a result. If Newton had
been informed about seconds getting longer and mass
increasing as velocity is increased, he no doubt would
have rejected such as complete nonsense.

Is a ruler calibrated to 1/32 of an inch wrong compared to a
micrometer calibrated to .0005 inch?

Is the micrometer wrong compared to an optical inferometer?

Must one use an optical inferometer to build a one hole outhouse?

Again, how do you explain the fact that entangled particles
violate the theory that nothing can happen faster than the
speed of light? Oh yeah, I forgot - simply re-define the
problem out of existence. Those particles are communicating
faster than light but there is no information flow (yet).

A nonsense question.

There is a big difference between "something happening" and
mass moving, but you know that, don't you?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

John Smith I wrote:

...
However, if I spun up the moon to revolve once ever 48 hours, that would
NOT make use of the moons spin valid in equations ... even if I
expressed it in equations like: moon-speed = (earth-speed * 2)

Something, or some effect, unknown to us belongs in those equations!
Sheer logic provides the proof ...

JS

Another thing, as I get older, NOTHING gets better ...

Change the above: "moon_speed = (earth_speed * 2)"
to:
moon_speed = (earth_speed/2)

I hate those dyslexic slips ... :-(

JS

Mike Kaliski wrote:
"John, N9JG" wrote in message
et...
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.

If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous
and
rich.

John, N9JG

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
[snip]
One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the
speed of light yet the communications between entangled
particles obviously travels faster than the speed of
light.
[snip]
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


John & Cecil

Extract from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/newtech2.html

The Chiao Group at Berkeley is investigating superluminality. Ryan Frewin,
Renee George, Deborah Paulson have a web page about superluminality, in
which they say: "...

About ten years ago, Steven Chu and Stephen Wong at AT&T Bell Labs in New
Jersey measured superluminal velocities for light pulses traveling through
an absorbing material ...
In 1991, Anedio Ranfagni et al at the National Institute for Research into
Electromagnetic Waves in Florence, Italy measured the speed of propagation
for microwaves through a "forbidden zone" inside square metal w aveguides.
The reported values were initially less than the speed of light, until the
experiment was repeated in 1992 with thicker barriers ...
Also in 1992, Gunter Nimtz and colleagues at the University of Cologne
reported superluminal speeds for microwaves traversing a similar forbidden
region ...
In 1993, the most solid experimental evidence came from Chiao and his
colleagues Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat at the University of California
at Berkeley. Using the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer ... they were able to
measure the tunneling times of visible light. According to Brown, "the
researchers found that the photons that tunneled their way through the
optical filter arrived 1.5 femtoseconds sooner than the ones that traveled
through air. The tunneling photons seemed to have traveled at 1.7 times the
speed of light" ...
Similar experiments by Ferenc Krauss et al at the Technical University in
Vienna in October of 1994 "strongly suggest that as they progressively
increased the thickness of the barrier the tunneling time saturated toward a
maximum value" ...
In March of 1995, at a colloquium in Snowbird, Utah, Nimtz announced that he
had sent a signal across twelve centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed
of light . The signal was a modulation in the frequency of his microwave
source matching Mozart's 40th Symphony ... Even Chiao and his colleagues
were adamantly opposed to describing Nimtz' work as the sending of a signal
...
Why was the bar of Mozart's symphony not a signal? ... If a wave packet's
shape upon incidence is smooth and well- defined, it is a straightforward
calculation to determine its shape after transmission. Because the final
shape can be mathematically determined ... most scientists would not
consider a smoothly varying function to be a signal. ... Chiao and Steinberg
were quick to point out that Nimtz' symphony was not a signal, but simply a
smoothly varying pulse. .. A sudden change in the shape would still travel
at only light speed, and only a sudden change, according to Chiao, could be
regarded as a signal ... ".

Clearly some things do appear to travel faster than the speed of light in a
vacuum. The jury appears to be out as to whether any practical use can be
made of the phenomenon.

Mike G0ULI



This was in "evanescent mode", in other words, waveguide or something
similar. Not "free space". So very very very unlikely exceeding the
speed of light in a vacuum. As in it didn't. No laws were broken.

tom
K0TAR

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.

Already answered from another posting:
"Those particles are communicating faster than light
but there is no information flow (yet)."

IMO, it is only a matter of time and effort before
we figure out how to modulate entangled particles.
After all, it took ~250,000 years for us to figure
out how to modulate EM waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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