breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 05:14:49 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<rtp@example.net> wrote:

Exactly. It's the ease of cynicism. Since everything is doomed to
failure and life is a p.o.s., we can kick back and whine, sneer at
people who have hope, and laugh when things go wrong. Beats working!


And why shouldn't a person do just that, if they can get away with it?

Because it makes life worse for everybody, especially themselves. And
all the sneering causes wrinkles.

John

 

[Robert Baer]

Mark Jones wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 19:54:40 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmtree117@juno.com
wrote:


As John Larkin said... "Same sort of thing, altering the shape of a
pulse and thinking that makes it go faster. Optically, an oscillatory
burst can appear to
exceed C if you sort of stand back and squint, but no photons are going
faster than C."

You can never be positive. If you cannot measure the position and
velocity of the photons simultaneously, how can you be sure they are
not going faster than c? Nobody can really measure the speed of the
particles as they exited the container, because you'd need to specify
the position defined as "exiting the container."


You can build a fast shutter close to a source that only lets light
through for a nanosecond or less, and then measure arrival times some
distance away. Or do interferance experiments, which are exquisitely
sensitive to the speed of light. There are lots of techniques that
could detect ftl photons if they existed.



This could disprove
the experiment, but it could also disprove the arguments of everyone
who does not believe the photons moved faster than c.



Well, you can't disprove the conjecture that something, maybe a rogue
photon, does move ftl. But no experiment has ever demonstrated such,
and there's lots of theory that says it can't happen. The burden of
proof is to show a real case. "Laws" like the conservation of energy
get much of their force from the fact that no counter-case has ever
been observed.

You can observe a quasar flash that happened 8 billion years ago, on
the other side of this universe, and look at it in wavelengths from
radio through gamma rays; everything arrives at Earth at the same
time, which is pretty impressive.

John


It is compelling to believe that there could be some way to exceed C. On one
hand, it's great to be "pushing the envelope" by researching such things, but on
the other hand, don't let simple lust blind you into believing something is real
when it is not. Any theories are just heresay until proven otherwise. This
reminds me of a post I saw here recently which went something like this... (use
a monospaced font like Courier):

Scientists Discover New Waveform:
/-------------------------------\
| . |
| \\ |
| \ \ |
| _______) \______ |
| Time--> |
\-------------------------------/
The Sharktooth

Here's my two cents. Einstein's Time/Frame notion - and the notion that light
can travel faster than C with respect to other light - seems to be consistent
with observations made scientifically. i.e., measure the speed of light on two
opposing edges of an expanding universe from the center, and they have an
escaping velocity *delta* faster than C. But no light actually travels faster
than C in it's frame.

The other idea is that if string theory is correct, what if "FTL" is simply the
12th dimension? (I can't stand that vagueness about string theory - "if
something doesn't work right, just add another dimension...")

That said, also interesting the the propagation speed of EM radiation with
respect to C in various mediums. Research for instance, the speed of "c" in an
iron powder medium; the answer might surprise you.

-- "I think the state of the universe at the moment of conceptulization
determines part of how an entity further interacts with the rest of its reality,
and hence our experience with it." MCJ 200311

As i remember it, the characteristics of a tahcyon (FTL photon) or
other FTL item was: The more the friction it encountered, the faster it
would go, and its limiting velocity was on the low end, or C.
Had to put more energy into the tachyon to slow it down closer to the
speed of light.
That is to say, no matter which "side" of C one was talking about,
more energy had to be used to get the object to travel closer to C.
Symmetrical equation.

 

[Robert Baer]

~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

"I think John Larkin said it best: "If there's something going faster
than c, it's not a photon." And, according to the definition of
"photon", that's absolutely true."

All right, so I'll rephrase that. No PHOTONS were going faster than c,
but we haven't proven that tracheyons aren't (I've seen that spelled so
many different ways, so I don't know if I'm spelling it right.) Is that
basically saying that, if a photon was to move >c, it would have to be
called a tracheyon?

Yup!

 

[Robert Baer]

~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

This is a question I have had since reading about Maxwell's
equations... in each one of them, there is this upside-down triangle
symbol that looks just like the delta triangle flipped over. What is
this symbol and what does it mean???

I took a quantum physics test on allthetests.com (to find it just type
"quantum" in the search box, there is only one) and I scored 8 out of
12.

If i remember correctly, the term is "del" and i never learned those
operators.
I am guessing they are 3D vector operators used in a form of calculus
(could be very wrong).
There are other "nasty" mathematical things: dirac function,
theoretical derivation of shear and torque come to mind.

 

[YD]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 05:30:46 GMT, Pig Bladder
<pigbladder@neodruid.net> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:51:43 -0800, ~~SciGirl~~ wrote:

umm... that's simple?

No, that's sarcasm.

When are you going to either get a real ISP with a real news server, or
learn to quote stuff on the google chat room page?

Sign up at http://news.individual.net for a free account.

Xnews, Xananews, Free Agent, Microplanet Gravity for free readers.
Grab the lot from http://www.nonags.com/nonags/newsr.html and give
each a try. Keep the one that suits you. SLRN if you're on Linux/*BSD.

So lunch may not be free but there's sure a lot of software out there


- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[keith]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 04:23:28 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.02.06.01.14.34.734390@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
Ah, I wuz just wondering if you fell into the "wonders" of LSSD design.

LSSD???

Level Sensitive Scan Design.

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/level-sensitive+scan+design

More detail:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/342/ibmrd3402a3R.pdf

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:22:39 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 04:25:15 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
rtp@example.net> wrote:


John serves Mo.

Yes.

Yes, John better!

John is good.

Mo is better.

for John.

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4205E63D.2B8D4B1D@earthlink.net>,
Robert Baer <robertbaer@earthlink.net> wrote:
[...]

Circuitry and instrumentation do not care if an edge goes positive or
negative, or which edge is making the change, or how much of a change.

It is very common for circuits to have unequal slew rates and other
non-linear characteristics that make matter a great deal which way an edge
is going. Take a look at the specs of a 7400.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.02.06.15.38.45.795039@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]

Level Sensitive Scan Design.

There is sort of a funny thing about boundary scan. To have boundary scan
on a board, you have to add more circuits that may fail. The fact that
IBM seems to be coming up with a way to reduce the total is most likely a
good thing in the long run.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <SiQx+7BRKgBCFw6S@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate <noone@yuk.yuk> wrote:
[...]

There is no 'center': the expansion is not from a point but from every
point.

The center is the earth and everything else is running away because we
have cosmic BO.

But seriously: On the large scale the universe is expanding in a uniform
manner. Small details like the formation of black holes make the
expansion have a texture to it. Some of this texture may be left over
information from a much earlier time. In this earlier time, matter that
is beyond the observable universe could have left its foot prints. From
this we may be able to infer things about stuff we will never see.




--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <hgbc015ocukep0cdtomi4l8b8mck4tsvqs@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]

Try stopping 10, 41 year olds on a street corner and see if they do. I
doubt more than half do.



IMNSHO, I would expect _maybe_ ONE to _understand_ Calculus, most of
the others _may_ have _heard_ of Calculus.

It will vary depending on the street corner but I predict the averages
will be:

4 out of 10 will think that calculus is a tooth problem.
2 out of 10 will think that Calculus was some Roman guy.
1 out of 10 will think that Calculus is a new software program.
1 out of 10 will know, sort of, what Calculus is.
0.6 out of 10 will be able to use some Calculus.
0.3 out of 10 will have a real understanding of what they are doing.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[~~SciGirl~~]

BUT I AM 14, NOT 41!!!!!!! sheesh no one believes me here

 

[~~SciGirl~~]

yes but the physics books there stink and are loaded with calculus, and
don't look like the best books out there.

 

[~~SciGirl~~]

" And guess what? The third law of thermodynamics guarantees that all
electronics will get warmer."

The trouble with that is that they aren't even getting into
thermodynamics yet (I can decode the latin roots of that I think -
temperature change?)

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ <palmtree117@juno.com>
wrote (in <1107711844.394622.318690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com&gt about
'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sun, 6
Feb 2005:

BUT I AM 14, NOT 41!!!!!!! sheesh no one believes me here

In base 37? (;-)

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[keith]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 17:08:04 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.02.06.15.38.45.795039@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
Level Sensitive Scan Design.

There is sort of a funny thing about boundary scan. To have boundary scan
on a board, you have to add more circuits that may fail. The fact that
IBM seems to be coming up with a way to reduce the total is most likely a
good thing in the long run.

Sure, more circuits may fail, but without being able to test any circuits
the ones that work aren't of much use either. There is a huge premium for
test in complicated designs (aren't they all these days?).

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 18:32:38 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ <palmtree117@juno.com
wrote (in <1107711844.394622.318690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com&gt about
'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sun, 6
Feb 2005:

BUT I AM 14, NOT 41!!!!!!! sheesh no one believes me here

In base 37? (;-)

Over on CSIPHC I tell people I'm 34. Most understand quite well. ;-)

--
Keith

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 21:42:51 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

256 KV; see abse.

I guess it's a good thing that TeeVees don't use relativistic voltages so
they work just fine on planet Earth. I hate it when mine has a
blue (state) shift.

I try to be polite to any particle that's not an absolute boson.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On 5 Feb 2005 09:39:00 -0800, "~~SciGirl~~" <palmtree117@juno.com>
wrote:

The amount man knows in comparison to the amount there is out there to
know is ridiculously tiny, so we really cannot rely on the equations.
Every fundamental quality of the universe we describe might be
incorrect.

One of the "rules" is that you're not qualified to criticize the
current paradigm until you thoroughly understand it. That seems fair
to me.

John

 

[~~SciGirl~~]

if you dont trust anybody, you don't get anywhere in life. somebody
told me that. SO WILL YOU ALL JUST TRUST ME THAT I AM 14 YEARS OLD
ALREADY?!?!

is it really that unusual for someone my age to be able to understand
quantum physics?