Next Intel's processor using FTL data transmission technolog

Mathew Orman wrote:
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f907b12.8292924@news.planet.nl...
This statement doesn't make any sense. Things don't need to exist in
order to describe them. For instance, logical algebra was invented
long before the first digital circuit (IIRC before 1900)!

The first digital circuit didn't use logical algebra but simple decimal
arithmetic operation.
If something was not invented than it didn't existed.

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!
Click to expand...

A model does not create physical phenomena, it describes it numerically.

The model can describe something that may or may not be observable.

The lack of a model does not necessarily negate it's existence, nor the
existance of a model prove the existance of the phenomena.

Inability to observe the phenomena does not negate it's existence, but the
ability to observe it, does prove it's existance.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
 
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:dr5kb.32$uG3.3@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f907b12.8292924@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

The first digital circuit didn't use logical algebra but simple
decimal arithmetic operation.
If something was not invented than it didn't existed.

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena
must physically exist!


You just haven't got a clue do you.

How about tachyons? i.e. FTL objects. Fully modelled
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html, yet we have not
know if they do exist or not.

Or Black Holes, extensively researched from a theoretical of view,
before any physical evidence suggested that they existed. Or string
theory...The list is endless.


Since Einsteins allow them self to postulate a physical property,
now everyone else does it!

Biurocracy and fraud in science is a serious social problem!
Click to expand...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:03:41 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com>
wrote:


Biurocracy and fraud in science is a serious social problem!
Click to expand...
---
And with your knowingly illegitimate FTL claims, the fraud part is
growing...

--
John Fields
 
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!
Click to expand...
What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan
 
"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan
Click to expand...
Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before it
was physically discovered!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:05:31 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com>
wrote:

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before it
was physically discovered!
Click to expand...
Radio waves: Maxwell predicted, Hertz confirmed.

Masers: Townes, based on Einstein's mathematical prediction of
stimulated emission (which he himself considered to be impractical.)

Relativity: Einstein predicted, hundreds have confirmed.

Black holes.

Atoms.

Bacteria.

The list is virtually endless. Scads of subatomic particles, like
electrons, neutrinos, W's, quarks, neutrons, antimatter. Einstein-Bose
condensates. Quantum entanglement. Tons of chemicals, mechanisms, and
drugs.

Nearly all good theories are predictive.

John
 
Mathew Orman wrote:
Also see the auction details of the first ever made commercial sample of FTL
Data Transmission Line
serial number 001, at:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2564677419&category=361
Click to expand...
Just in case there is no bider, do you consider doing a second
round with a lower starting price ? There is a chance it goes
when the starting bid issomewhat lower. Your CD with the ladies
went for a price 6.5 time higher than the starting bid.
There, the starting bit was somewhat lower though.
Well, the starting bid for the cable may be higher than that then.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
 
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before it
was physically discovered!
Click to expand...
The A-bomb

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:41:29 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb
Click to expand...
---
Excellent!-)

--
John Fields
 
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91b361.47394219@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before
it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
Click to expand...
False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Rene Tschaggelar" <none@none.none> wrote in message
news:6c7073d74058ab8e3086b471d6d62daa@news.teranews.com...
Mathew Orman wrote:

Also see the auction details of the first ever made commercial sample of
FTL
Data Transmission Line
serial number 001, at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2564677419&category=361

Just in case there is no bider, do you consider doing a second
round with a lower starting price ? There is a chance it goes
when the starting bid issomewhat lower. Your CD with the ladies
went for a price 6.5 time higher than the starting bid.
There, the starting bit was somewhat lower though.
Well, the starting bid for the cable may be higher than that then.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
Click to expand...
There is one already starting at $10.00.

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91b361.47394219@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before
it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb


False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!
Click to expand...
Before the first A-bomb was detonated, loads of people have been doing
an enourmous amount of calculations on how it should be constructed to
start a chain reaction. Read Feynman's biografy about it.
AFAIK, the A-bombs that forced Japan into capitulation only worked on
paper. They had a different construction than the first bomb that got
tested at Los Alamos. That's why the US never issued a "Japan stop now
or else we will really kick your buts!" warning before the first bomb.
There was a slight chance the bomb wouldn't go off at all and the US
would lose face.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:34:28 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91b361.47394219@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before
it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb


False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!
Click to expand...
The Curies knew nothing about fission.

Before the first A-bomb was detonated, loads of people have been doing
an enourmous amount of calculations on how it should be constructed to
start a chain reaction. Read Feynman's biografy about it.
AFAIK, the A-bombs that forced Japan into capitulation only worked on
paper. They had a different construction than the first bomb that got
tested at Los Alamos. That's why the US never issued a "Japan stop now
or else we will really kick your buts!" warning before the first bomb.
There was a slight chance the bomb wouldn't go off at all and the US
would lose face.
Click to expand...
Two bombs were dropped on Japan. Little Boy, the cannon-Uranium bomb,
was never pre-tested, because the designers were confident it would
work, and not much U235 was available. Fat Man, the Plutonium
implosion bomb, was a much more doubtful device, so a prototype was
first tested at the Trinity site in New Mexico. They all worked, with
yields about as predicted.

Read

Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, history of the project.

Serber, The Los Alamos Primer, lecture notes from early 1943 on how to
build a Bomb.

John
 
Mathew Orman wrote:

The A-bomb

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl


False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Click to expand...
They made an A-Bomb before Oppenheimer and his crew? Alert
the media!

-Chuck
 
In article <lhd3pvouhsir35t1gtkg3ln57hbijarrh9@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:41:29 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb

---
Excellent!-)
Click to expand...
....and they beat Nitrogen-tri-Iodide on the *bang* scale.

--
Keith
 
In article <qbk3pvkfollri0e7hi4u3vbo0m4np43pd7@4ax.com>,
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com says...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:34:28 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91b361.47394219@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled before
it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb


False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!


The Curies knew nothing about fission.

Before the first A-bomb was detonated, loads of people have been doing
an enourmous amount of calculations on how it should be constructed to
start a chain reaction. Read Feynman's biografy about it.
AFAIK, the A-bombs that forced Japan into capitulation only worked on
paper. They had a different construction than the first bomb that got
tested at Los Alamos. That's why the US never issued a "Japan stop now
or else we will really kick your buts!" warning before the first bomb.
There was a slight chance the bomb wouldn't go off at all and the US
would lose face.

Two bombs were dropped on Japan. Little Boy, the cannon-Uranium bomb,
was never pre-tested, because the designers were confident it would
work, and not much U235 was available. Fat Man, the Plutonium
implosion bomb, was a much more doubtful device, so a prototype was
first tested at the Trinity site in New Mexico. They all worked, with
yields about as predicted.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Note that no country that has decided to go nuke has had
a failure on it's *first* try. Israel has known this for forty
years. Only braggarts need to show their muscle.

--
Keith
 
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91cb33.53491757@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91b361.47394219@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


"Alan" <alantak69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfee2f9c.0310180927.2cad9185@posting.google.com...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote in message

In order for physicist to model physical phenomena the phenomena
must
physically exist!

What an absolute crap statement that is. Almost all physics
discoveries were thought of and could therefore be modeled BEFORE it
was known or proven that they existed or not. Millions of things
were
modeled that CAN'T exist, because the ideas were wrong. It is
INVENTED as soon as it's properly modeled, even if it can't actually
be made for dozens of years.


And this is the root of your evils. You've MODELED a FTL
transmission line, so you think you've proven that it really exists.
No thought to the fact that your electronics modeling ability sucks
eggs, with inaccurate understandings of many fundamental electronic
principles, and thats what allows you to arrive at such an erroneous
conclusion.

You may have the odd actual good idea and be a reasonably bright
person in some other respects. But guaranteed if they hook a
General
IQ meter across your head the plotted trace will show some striking
dips over the FTL, tranmission lines, and general electronics
circuits
data points. No doubt the graph will also touch zero at the
conservation laws, overunity isn't real, and general common sense
points as well..

Alan

Please give me an example of physical phenomena that was modeled
before
it
was physically discovered!

The A-bomb


False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!

Before the first A-bomb was detonated, loads of people have been doing
an enourmous amount of calculations on how it should be constructed to
start a chain reaction. Read Feynman's biografy about it.
AFAIK, the A-bombs that forced Japan into capitulation only worked on
paper. They had a different construction than the first bomb that got
tested at Los Alamos. That's why the US never issued a "Japan stop now
or else we will really kick your buts!" warning before the first bomb.
There was a slight chance the bomb wouldn't go off at all and the US
would lose face.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl
Click to expand...
Bomb is not a physical phenomena but a technological implementation of one.
Nuclear reactions ware discovered first than modeled!

Einstein postulated the physical property of space and despite his wishful
thinking
it filed to materialize it self in reality!


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
"Chuck Harris" <cfharris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bmt06s$mhp$2@bob.news.rcn.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:

The A-bomb

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl


False!
Check Marie Curie and her husband work!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com



They made an A-Bomb before Oppenheimer and his crew? Alert
the media!

-Chuck
Click to expand...
Bomb is not a physical phenomena but a technological implementation of one.
Nuclear reactions ware discovered first than modeled!

Einstein postulated the physical property of space and despite his wishful
thinking
it filed to materialize it self in reality!


Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91cb33.53491757@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


Einstein postulated the physical property of space and despite his
wishful thinking
it filed to materialize it self in reality!
Click to expand...
What are you rabbiting on about. When has GR failed?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hMukb.414$nL.93@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
Mathew Orman wrote:
"Nico Coesel" <nico@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:3f91cb33.53491757@news.planet.nl...
"Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com> wrote:


Einstein postulated the physical property of space and despite his
wishful thinking
it filed to materialize it self in reality!



What are you rabbiting on about. When has GR failed?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Click to expand...
Never!
GR has never failed!
It is like a perfect clock!
The stopped clock!

Something that never worked will never fail!

Sincerely,

Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top