Superluminal science lab kit that falsifies Einstein's spee

[Mathew Orman]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021


Students welcome!

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics teacher!
This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!



Sincerely,

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

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mathew Orman wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021


Students welcome!

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics
teacher! This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!

Go away, you stupid fool.

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.

 

[Mathew Orman]

.............LTspice.

Clink on this link to download it:
http://ltspice.linear.com/software/swcadiii.exe

Long Live Linear Technology!

Sincerely,

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

 

[Ben Pope]

Mathew Orman wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021


Students welcome!

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics
teacher! This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!

Ok, you've gone from amusing to annoying now.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Jeroen Vriesman]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:12:04 +0200, Mathew Orman <orman@nospam.com> wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021


Students welcome!

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics
teacher!
This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!

Well, SR states that something with nonzero restmass cannot move faster

than light, and something with zero restmass moves at lightspeed.

But the concept of mass doesn't apply to information, information can be
described as "correlation in events", either in time or space.
So does "information traveling faster than light" falsify SR?

The "electric field" is not really somthing which is there, it's a concept,
it started by a force between charged objects being modelled by a function
which describes the force/charge as a function of the space for the charge-

0.

So a field "moving" faster than light doesn't falsify SR either, since a
field isn't something which could have properties like mass etc. a "field"
is a mind-concept to simplify calculations.

Even the idea of "a field containg energy" is a serious mistake, it's ok as
a way of calculating, but that's it, nothing more.

Personally I think your clains are true. (maybe I'm the only one in this
group besides you Mathew), but they don't falsify any existing theory.

If you see information as a "correlation in events", you can even show that
it's possible to transmit/receive information instantaniously from anywhere
to anywhere, doesn't matter if teh distance is 1cm or 10 lightyears.

so, I'm officially "another lunatic" in this group now, but I don't care.

Cheers,
Jeroen.

Sincerely,

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

 

[Dr. Anton Squeegee]

In article <bmopt5$en9$1@news.onet.pl>, orman@nospam.com says...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021


Students welcome!

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics teacher!
This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!

If you're going to try scamming someone, at least limit it to
yourself.

Remember, tinfoil hats go on shiny side OUT.


--
Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t c&o&m
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" (Red Green)

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:11:02 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Mathew Orman wrote:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021


Students welcome!

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics
teacher! This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!

Ok, you've gone from amusing to annoying now.

Ben

I think we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that this lunatic,
along with DimBulb, have become part of the permanent background noise
of this group, sort of like noisy but harmless village idiots.

John

 

[Mike Elliott]

Mathew Orman wrote:

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics teacher!
This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!

Keeps coming back like a bad case of athlete's foot.

Mike Elliott

 

[Ben Pope]

John Larkin wrote:

I think we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that this lunatic,
along with DimBulb, have become part of the permanent background noise
of this group, sort of like noisy but harmless village idiots.

I was under the impression that eBay didn't look too kindly on advertising
on newsgroups.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:22:53 +0200, Jeroen Vriesman
<joenix@the-djs.com> wrote:

If you see information as a "correlation in events", you can even show that
it's possible to transmit/receive information instantaniously from anywhere
to anywhere, doesn't matter if teh distance is 1cm or 10 lightyears.

so, I'm officially "another lunatic" in this group now, but I don't care.

Yes, I'm afraid so. What you and Orman are saying is that a hundred
years of geniuses - Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, the whole crew who
created modern science - were all idiots, and you two know better. And
of the tens of thousands of engineers who have designed, simulated,
and used transmission lines, nobody else ever noticed that the sigs
were moving faster than light.

Not very likely, guys.

John

ps - read up on quantum entanglement.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:12:04 +0200, Mathew Orman <orman@nospam.com
wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2958461021


Students welcome!

Take an advantage of this new technology and challenge your physics
teacher!
This evidence falsifies SR,GR, QM and QED!

Well, SR states that something with nonzero restmass cannot move
faster than light, and something with zero restmass moves at
lightspeed.

SR is usually based on the axiom of the speed of light is invariant.
However, some alternative treatments actually start with the actual
assumption that there is a maximum speed. In conjunction with the
assumption of all inertial frames are equivalent, SR followers.

But the concept of mass doesn't apply to information,

Mass-energy most certainly does apply to information. All information
must be coded in a physical object.

information can
be described as "correlation in events", either in time or space.

No. As is well known in tobacco law suits, correlation is not
necessarily causal.

Information is restricted to mass-energy limitations, just as any other
object. Information as, anything else, is embodied as mass-energy,
located in a position.

So does "information traveling faster than light" falsify SR?

Objects traverling FTL, e.g. Tachyons that never travel less than light
speed are quite acceptable.

It is unclear on what the implications are for SR under some other
sceneries. For example, QM entanglement predicts FTL communication
between objects. However, it is not possible, to transfer usable
information via this method.

The "electric field" is not really somthing which is there, it's a
concept, it started by a force between charged objects being modelled
by a function which describes the force/charge as a function of the
space for the charge-

However, the arguable the best "physical" description of the electric
field, is the momentum exchange of photons between charges, i.e. QED.

0.

So a field "moving" faster than light doesn't falsify SR either,
since a field isn't something which could have properties like mass
etc. a "field" is a mind-concept to simplify calculations.

This is misleading. The EM field is still restricted to light speed
propagation.

Even the idea of "a field containg energy" is a serious mistake, it's
ok as a way of calculating, but that's it, nothing more.

Again, arguable, the energy is contained by the exchange of photons.

Personally I think your clains are true. (maybe I'm the only one in
this group besides you Mathew), but they don't falsify any existing
theory.

This makes no sense. He claims SR, QM, etc are false. Hisclaims are
false.

I agree, his experiment is completely consistent with all known theory.

If you see information as a "correlation in events",

Its not.

you can even
show that it's possible to transmit/receive information
instantaniously from anywhere to anywhere,

No you cant.

doesn't matter if teh
distance is 1cm or 10 lightyears.

Ho hum...

so, I'm officially "another lunatic" in this group now, but I don't

Seriously misguided is a more appropriate term, imo.

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.

 

[Jeroen Vriesman]

Indeed very unlikely.

But like I said before, faster than light does not have to be in conflict
with theory of relativity.

And when you are dealing with waves, their maximum speed is lightspeed, and
a waveguide or transmision line is designed to carry waves, and will carry
them slower than lightspeed. Completely ok, nothing wrong with that, nobody
is an idiot.

But what you are saying is that what we know now is carved in stone,
everything which isn't the way we think it's supposed to be is not true.

I don't know if Orman is right about his claims, I can only know that for
sure when I see it myself.

I can only say that I think it's possible that information travels faster
than light, that thought is based on ideas and theory, far from complete,
but it is something I've been working on for 7 years now adter my physics
study.

So. unlikely, yes, maybe just as unlikely as clocks running at a different
speed when the observer moves?

I'm not asking anyone to believe me, I hope that one day I can produce a
complete theory, until that time, I cannot prove anything, so it's useless
to believe or not believe. I'm just sure that quantum mechanics and
relativity are not the complete story.

Cheers,
Jeroen.



On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:13:05 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:22:53 +0200, Jeroen Vriesman
joenix@the-djs.com> wrote:


If you see information as a "correlation in events", you can even show
that it's possible to transmit/receive information instantaniously from
anywhere to anywhere, doesn't matter if teh distance is 1cm or 10
lightyears.

so, I'm officially "another lunatic" in this group now, but I don't
care.


Yes, I'm afraid so. What you and Orman are saying is that a hundred
years of geniuses - Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, the whole crew who
created modern science - were all idiots, and you two know better. And
of the tens of thousands of engineers who have designed, simulated,
and used transmission lines, nobody else ever noticed that the sigs
were moving faster than light.

Not very likely, guys.

John

ps - read up on quantum entanglement.

 

[Jeroen Vriesman]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:21:42 +0100, Kevin Aylward
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Mass-energy most certainly does apply to information. All information
must be coded in a physical object.

information can
be described as "correlation in events", either in time or space.

No. As is well known in tobacco law suits, correlation is not
necessarily causal.

Information is restricted to mass-energy limitations, just as any other
object. Information as, anything else, is embodied as mass-energy,
located in a position.

What if information existed without being coded in a physical object, maybe
it's just us "physical beings" which need the object to get the
information, just because we happen to be physical object ourselves.

 

[Mathew Orman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:1qb0pv8dbrdke55dak2vvjf4mmjoaud00g@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:22:53 +0200, Jeroen Vriesman
joenix@the-djs.com> wrote:


If you see information as a "correlation in events", you can even show
that
it's possible to transmit/receive information instantaniously from
anywhere
to anywhere, doesn't matter if teh distance is 1cm or 10 lightyears.

so, I'm officially "another lunatic" in this group now, but I don't care.


Yes, I'm afraid so. What you and Orman are saying is that a hundred
years of geniuses - Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, the whole crew who
created modern science - were all idiots, and you two know better. And
of the tens of thousands of engineers who have designed, simulated,
and used transmission lines, nobody else ever noticed that the sigs
were moving faster than light.

Not very likely, guys.

John

ps - read up on quantum entanglement.

You wish!

Maxwell has nothing to do Einstein, Feynman, Lorentz, Plancks and other
fallacy vaporware producer!

Also engineers where not designing voltage mode signal transmission lines.
If you find a single one that had attempted such than provide the
references.


Sincerely,

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

 

[MaWin]

Mathew Orman <orman@nospam.com> schrieb im Beitrag <bmopt5$en9$1@news.onet.pl>...

[spam snipped]

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com

Great.
Really great.
Have you visited www.ultra-faster-than-light.com ?
Did you ever lose money on stocks ?
Need some extra cash ?
Then Mathew is the rescue:

He's offering 200% money back guarantee.
If his 'faster-than-light' does not work.
Of course it will not work. Never.

So just buy 1000 mr of his 100 MBit/sec FTL Data Transmission Cable for $250000,
send it back for 200% money back refund, receive $500000
and immediatly be $250000 richer.

That's great. Thank you Mathew.
--
MaWin

 

[Gareth]

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

I don't know if Orman is right about his claims, I can only know that
for sure when I see it myself.

I agree that new ideas should not be rejected out of hand, and I have
tried to simulate this FTL transmission line using Spice as Mr Orman
suggested (as have a few others who read this newsgroup). I found NO
evidence of FTL transmission; the reflection from the unterminated end
causes some interesting effects, but these are easily explained without
FTL transmission.

There was a long thread some time ago where Orman's results were
explained with conventional(and very simple) theory, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bec3ki%24odf%241%40news.onet.pl&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dbec3ki%2524odf%25241%2540news.onet.pl%26prev%3D/groups%253Fq%253DFTL%252BOrman%252Btotalise%2526hl%253Den%2526lr%253D%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526selm%253Dbec3ki%252524odf%2525241%252540news.onet.pl%2526rnum%253D1

Or google for "Orman FTL gareth.harris" (without the quotes)

Gareth.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk

 

[Gareth]

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

I don't know if Orman is right about his claims, I can only know that
for sure when I see it myself.

I agree that new ideas should not be rejected out of hand, and I have
tried to simulate this FTL transmission line using Spice as Mr Orman
suggested (as have a few others who read this newsgroup). I found NO
evidence of FTL transmission; the reflection from the unterminated end
causes some interesting effects, but these are easily explained without
FTL transmission.

There was a long thread some time ago where Orman's results were
explained with conventional(and very simple) theory, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bec3ki%24odf%241%40news.onet.pl&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dbec3ki%2524odf%25241%2540news.onet.pl%26prev%3D/groups%253Fq%253DFTL%252BOrman%252Btotalise%2526hl%253Den%2526lr%253D%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526selm%253Dbec3ki%252524odf%2525241%252540news.onet.pl%2526rnum%253D1

Or google for "Orman FTL gareth.harris" (without the quotes)

Gareth.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Gareth wrote:

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

I don't know if Orman is right about his claims, I can only know that
for sure when I see it myself.

I agree that new ideas should not be rejected out of hand,

If they come form somebody who is knowledgeable, in the field, you may
have a valid point. *Non* of the main physicists, e.g. Heisenburg,
Einstein, Dirac, Bhor etc.. were amateurs in physics when they proposed
their new theories. Orman is an idiot who should indeed be dismissed to
the gutter. He is demonstrably a deluded fool.


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]

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:21:42 +0100, Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:



Mass-energy most certainly does apply to information. All information
must be coded in a physical object.

information can
be described as "correlation in events", either in time or space.

No. As is well known in tobacco law suits, correlation is not
necessarily causal.

Information is restricted to mass-energy limitations, just as any
other object. Information as, anything else, is embodied as
mass-energy, located in a position.


What if information existed without being coded in a physical object,

Such information would be non observable, in principle.

maybe it's just us "physical beings" which need the object to get the
information, just because we happen to be physical object ourselves.

Ho humm...Anything that interacts with mass-energy is mass-energy.
Anything that does not interact with mass-energy, is by definition, not
observable, therefore of no relevance to physics.


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.

 

[Mathew Orman]

"Gareth" <gareth.harris@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:WUYjb.372$xr1.57@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

I don't know if Orman is right about his claims, I can only know that
for sure when I see it myself.

I agree that new ideas should not be rejected out of hand, and I have
tried to simulate this FTL transmission line using Spice as Mr Orman
suggested (as have a few others who read this newsgroup). I found NO
evidence of FTL transmission; the reflection from the unterminated end
causes some interesting effects, but these are easily explained without
FTL transmission.

There was a long thread some time ago where Orman's results were
explained with conventional(and very simple) theory, see:


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bec3ki%24odf%241%40n

ews.onet.pl&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dbec3ki%2524
odf%25241%2540news.onet.pl%26prev%3D/groups%253Fq%253DFTL%252BOrman%252Btota
lise%2526hl%253Den%2526lr%253D%2526ie%253DUTF-8%2526selm%253Dbec3ki%252524od
f%2525241%252540news.onet.pl%2526rnum%253D1

Or google for "Orman FTL gareth.harris" (without the quotes)

Gareth.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:

Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk

Your theory is completely irrelevant!

If a single pulse gets across a given coax length 15 times faster than
light,
than the reflections must be traveling even faster!
However the key component of my invention is not disclosed!
And the hint is that in order to enable construction of continuous FTL data
transmission line
one must eliminate the output waveform distortion caused by input
displacement current.

Sincerely,

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