Superluminal science lab kit that falsifies Einstein's spee

[John Fields]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:05:29 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com>
wrote:

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.

---
Blah, blah, fucking blah.

Do you want to go for my test or not, chickenshit?

--
John Fields

 

[Jeroen Vriesman]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:01:08 +0100, Kevin Aylward
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

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.

Suppose you take a simple system, two little disk magnets, a few cm apart
on a table, and a piece of rope with an iron bal at the end, hang it above
the magnets.


|
|
| swing
0
A _ _ magnet B

When you put the swing in a certain position, it will swing around the
magnets and end up above A or B, depending on where it started, this
swinging is a basic example of a chaos ( 3 equations, non lineair) system.

If you plot your starting points, say red for the ones that make the swing
end above A, and green for the ones that make the swing end above B, you
will get a fractal, this is just an example of a one chaos system, there
are numerous.

So, fractal means that you can infinitely enlarge a piece of this plot and
see the same patterns over and over again.

Say you have -in such a region of your fractal-a red and a green point,
between them there are infinite red and green points, starting points
leading to a different end situation.

Now, if you hold your swing at such a "infinitely discontinious" region,
how much energy is needed to decide the swing to end above A or B, if you
would know that the system ends at A, but you want it to end above B, how
much enery do you need to change the final state?
The green and red point are infinitly close to each other.

So, if there is anything which is not mass-energy, it would still be
possible that physical systems react on it, we are used to calling it
"random".

Cheers,
Jeroen.

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]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6gu0pvk1s9ls9cqqkkvc7mvkkqflkljcjk@4ax.com...

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:05:29 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com
wrote:


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.

---
Blah, blah, fucking blah.

Do you want to go for my test or not, chickenshit?

--
John Fields

When Winfield Hill is done with it you will have it next.

Sincerely,

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

 

[Howard Henry Schlunder]

Changing subject lines causes Google Groups to create separate threads.
Doing so, in terms of archive and search purposes, results in spreading out
worthless messages instead of leaving them all concentrated inside a single
thread.

 

[Mike Elliott]

MaWin wrote:

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:

No- wait. I'm starting www.ultra-ultra-faster-than-light.com

200% faster than ultra-faster-than-light's product. We're still working
on the refund part of the thing, though.

Mike Elliott

 

[Bill Sloman]

"MaWin" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<01c394ed$5e42c520$01e8b8d9@amdk6-300>...

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.

I'm afraid that I've no more faith in guarantee than I have in his
cable.

And there is alwasy the risk that he will be able to persuade a lawyer
that his cable works - RCA's lawyers were able to persuade an
(American) judge that in-phase and quadrature modulation was different
from EMI's sine and cosine modulation in a commercially important
colour TV patent case.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:53:43 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com>
wrote:

When Winfield Hill is done with it you will have it next.
---

Don't you have two?

 

[Chuck Harris]

Mathew Orman wrote:

When Winfield Hill is done with it you will have it next.

When Winfield Hill is done with it, there will be NO NEED for
anyone to look at it next!

-Chuck
>

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:01:08 +0100, Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

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.


Suppose you take a simple system, two little disk magnets, a few cm
apart on a table, and a piece of rope with an iron bal at the end,
hang it above the magnets.


|
|
| swing
0
A _ _ magnet B

When you put the swing in a certain position, it will swing around the
magnets and end up above A or B, depending on where it started, this
swinging is a basic example of a chaos ( 3 equations, non lineair)
system.

If you plot your starting points, say red for the ones that make the
swing end above A, and green for the ones that make the swing end
above B, you will get a fractal, this is just an example of a one
chaos system, there are numerous.

So, fractal means that you can infinitely enlarge a piece of this
plot and see the same patterns over and over again.

Say you have -in such a region of your fractal-a red and a green
point, between them there are infinite red and green points, starting
points leading to a different end situation.

Now, if you hold your swing at such a "infinitely discontinious"
region, how much energy is needed to decide the swing to end above A
or B, if you would know that the system ends at A, but you want it to
end above B, how much enery do you need to change the final state?
The green and red point are infinitly close to each other.

So, if there is anything which is not mass-energy, it would still be
possible that physical systems react on it,

No. This shows nothing of the sort. Your arguing from ignorance.

we are used to calling it
"random".

This is complete gibberish, so I cant really address what you say at all
becuse of this. There is nothing to sensible to debate. However,
"Random" doesn't *cause* anything. It is a description of how things
behave. Secondly, a chaotic system, is not random. It is a deterministic
system that appears random, because of the systems sensitivity to
initial conditions.

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]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3f90a444.435454410@news.texas.net...

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:53:43 +0200, "Mathew Orman" <orman@nospam.com
wrote:


When Winfield Hill is done with it you will have it next.
---
Don't you have two?

Yes,
the other one is on it's way to:

Örebro University,
Department of Technology
To: Dr. William D. Walker
SE-701 82, Örebro, Sweden

Sincerely,

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

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:32:39 +0200, Jeroen Vriesman, said...
<snip>

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

when you say unlikely, what do you mean?

it was my understanding that the time effect was measured with atomic
clocks on airplanes compared with those on the ground and also by
showing that either muons or pi mesons (?) measured in upper atmosphere
and on the ground violated their half-lifes. IOW if i have 10 particles
in upper atmosphere and half *should* die by the time they hit the
ground but don't because time has slowed for them because they are
travelling at near light speed...

mike

<snip>

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:51:04 GMT, Mike Elliott, said...

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


so maybe tolnaftate will get rid of him.

mike

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:55:51 -0700, Howard Henry Schlunder, said...

Changing subject lines causes Google Groups to create separate threads.
Doing so, in terms of archive and search purposes, results in spreading out
worthless messages instead of leaving them all concentrated inside a single
thread.



that sucks some posts need the subject changed to "OT", etc. any ideas

what google could do to fix this?

you can't go by what massage ID a post is in response to unless that
info is included in the post.

mike

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:17:14 -0400, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com>
wrote:

Mathew Orman wrote:


When Winfield Hill is done with it you will have it next.

When Winfield Hill is done with it, there will be NO NEED for
anyone to look at it next!

---
Well, it never hurts for _anyone's_ work to be reviewed or for multiple
experiments to be performed in order to properly resolve conjecture.

Besides, I'm slightly offended. Do you doubt the veracity of _my_
approach? Orman seems not to, what with all the bobbing and weaving
he's doing to keep from submitting a cable to me for test...

--
John Fields

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Active8 wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:32:39 +0200, Jeroen Vriesman, said...
snip

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

when you say unlikely, what do you mean?

He means he hasn't got a bloody clue what he is talking about.

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.

 

[Chuck Harris]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:17:14 -0400, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com
wrote:


Mathew Orman wrote:


When Winfield Hill is done with it you will have it next.

When Winfield Hill is done with it, there will be NO NEED for
anyone to look at it next!


---
Well, it never hurts for _anyone's_ work to be reviewed or for multiple
experiments to be performed in order to properly resolve conjecture.

Besides, I'm slightly offended. Do you doubt the veracity of _my_
approach? Orman seems not to, what with all the bobbing and weaving
he's doing to keep from submitting a cable to me for test...

Don't be offended. Your approach is easily accurate enough to disprove,
or prove Orman's claims. Winfield Hill has the added punch of his
celebrity in the EE field.

Now, if Winfield Hill says it is superluminal, then I will immediately
want to do my own tests. Proof of superluminality is more than I am
willing to accept from anyone.

-Chuck

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <oprw600fjifn6ec4@news.demon.nl>, 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.

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.

Electric fields contain energy. Energy has mass. Capacitors gain
mass when you charge them and lose mass when you discharge them, although
I have yet to hear of this happening to an extent that can be demonstrated
with a scale.

One semi-loophole: In a waveguide, it is fairly common for the "phase
velocity" (velocity of peaks and zero-crossings of electric and magnetic
field in an unmodulated sinewave) to exceed the speed of light. But
modulate this, and the modulations travel at a different, slower,
always-slower-than-the-speed-of-light-in-vacuum speed known as the group
velocity. Furthermore, if the modulations have sharp edges, the edges of
the modulations usually get smeared. It works like the wake of a boat,
where waves within a wave cluster move faster than the cluster does, with
waves forming at the trailing edge of the cluster, running up to the
leading edge of the cluster and dying out, and the edges of the cluster
becoming less sharp as they move.

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.

An electric field contains energy. How much: Square of the electric
field, divided by the reciprocal of the square of the speed of light (in
the material in question at the frequency in question), divided by 4 and
divided by pi, multiplied by the dielectric constant of the medium in
question at the frequency in question (vacuum has a dielectric constant
of 1), and multiplied by "K-prime" which is 1 in the CGS system and
10 million in the MKS system. Also note that in the CGS system the
current unit is 10 times the amp of the MKS system and the voltage unit is
1/10 the volt of the MKS system, and the electric field unit in the CGS
system is 1/10 volt per centimeter.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In art. <slrnbp46rp.3v0.don@manx.misty.com>, Don Klipstein (ME!!) wrote:
(in part)

In article <oprw600fjifn6ec4@news.demon.nl>, Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

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.

Electric fields contain energy. Energy has mass.

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.

An electric field contains energy. How much: Square of the electric
field, divided by the reciprocal of the square of the speed of light (in
the material in question at the frequency in question), divided by 4 and
divided by pi, multiplied by the dielectric constant of the medium in
question at the frequency in question (vacuum has a dielectric constant
of 1), and multiplied by "K-prime" which is 1 in the CGS system and
10 million in the MKS system. Also note that in the CGS system the
current unit is 10 times the amp of the MKS system and the voltage unit is
1/10 the volt of the MKS system, and the electric field unit in the CGS
system is 1/10 volt per centimeter.

I was off a bit. It is actually:

1/2 the square of the electric field, multiplied by the dielectric
constant of the material in question at the frequency in question,
divided by the reciprocal of the speed of light in vacuum, divided by
(4*pi), and multiplied by "K-prime". I hope I got it right this time!

Note that for electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, there is also a
magnetic field with an equal amount of energy. I don't know how much
energy is in the magnetic field compared to the electric field for
electromagnetic waves in other materials however.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Bill Sloman]

don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in message news:<slrnbp5igt.6lu.don@manx.misty.com>...

In art. <slrnbp46rp.3v0.don@manx.misty.com>, Don Klipstein (ME!!) wrote:
(in part)
In article <oprw600fjifn6ec4@news.demon.nl>, Jeroen Vriesman wrote:

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.

Electric fields contain energy. Energy has mass.

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.

An electric field contains energy. How much: Square of the electric
field, divided by the reciprocal of the square of the speed of light (in
the material in question at the frequency in question), divided by 4 and
divided by pi, multiplied by the dielectric constant of the medium in
question at the frequency in question (vacuum has a dielectric constant
of 1), and multiplied by "K-prime" which is 1 in the CGS system and
10 million in the MKS system. Also note that in the CGS system the
current unit is 10 times the amp of the MKS system and the voltage unit is
1/10 the volt of the MKS system, and the electric field unit in the CGS
system is 1/10 volt per centimeter.

I was off a bit. It is actually:

1/2 the square of the electric field, multiplied by the dielectric
constant of the material in question at the frequency in question,
divided by the reciprocal of the speed of light in vacuum, divided by
(4*pi), and multiplied by "K-prime". I hope I got it right this time!

Note that for electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, there is also a
magnetic field with an equal amount of energy. I don't know how much
energy is in the magnetic field compared to the electric field for
electromagnetic waves in other materials however.

The energy in the magnetic field has to be the same as the energy in
the electric field - both collapse to zero twice per cycle (90 degrees
apart), and at these zero's, all the energy is manifested in the other
field.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Mike Elliott wrote:

MaWin wrote:


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:

No- wait. I'm starting www.ultra-ultra-faster-than-light.com

200% faster than ultra-faster-than-light's product. We're still working
on the refund part of the thing, though.

If I apply for the refund using my FTL internet connection (reversing
the flow of time), could I get my refund before actually purchasing the
FTL gadget?

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Faust, die Jung.