Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Velocity of light. by Mathew Orman - Public release record on November 23 2011.
0 views
Skip to first unread message
admformeto
Nov 23, 2011, 6:41:09 AM11/23/11
to
Read and learn:
Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
Thus relative to source light propagates in constant speed regardless of its
wavelength.
To produce light which propagates with different speed one must design
charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
The same applies to EM waves.
Mathew Orman
Public release record on November 23 2011.
Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
Thus relative to source light propagates in constant speed regardless of its
wavelength.
To produce light which propagates with different speed one must design
charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
The same applies to EM waves.
Mathew Orman
Public release record on November 23 2011.
PD
Nov 23, 2011, 9:38:08 AM11/23/11
to
On 11/23/2011 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
> Read and learn:
> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
Counter to the results of experiments such as Filippas and Fox.
> Read and learn:
> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
glen herrmannsfeldt
Nov 23, 2011, 10:40:00 AM11/23/11
to
In sci.physics.electromag admformeto <admfo...@onet.eu> wrote:
> Read and learn:
> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
> Thus relative to source light propagates in constant speed regardless
> of its wavelength.
Hmm. Most light sources are due to moving electrons, from SLF radio,
> Read and learn:
> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
> Thus relative to source light propagates in constant speed regardless
> of its wavelength.
up through X-rays. Gamma rays come from inside the nucleus, with
other charged particles moving around.
Negative muons orbiting protons could have transitions in the
visible range, and certainly lower than gamma rays.
> To produce light which propagates with different speed one
> must design charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
> The same applies to EM waves.
-- glen
admformeto
Nov 23, 2011, 11:04:13 AM11/23/11
to
"glen herrmannsfeldt" <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:jaj44g$ghk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
FTL.
As for gamma rays, experimenting could endanger my health so I will pass on
such.
Mathew Orman
PD
Nov 23, 2011, 11:29:48 AM11/23/11
to
On 11/23/2011 10:04 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
>> If you measure the speed of gamma rays, it seems that you avoid that.
>>
>> -- glen
>
> I will publish an experiment with a device that produces EM waves at 10x
> FTL.
> As for gamma rays, experimenting could endanger my health so I will pass
> on such.
We'll see. I presume you mean this publication that is advertised to
>
>> If you measure the speed of gamma rays, it seems that you avoid that.
>>
>> -- glen
>
> I will publish an experiment with a device that produces EM waves at 10x
> FTL.
> As for gamma rays, experimenting could endanger my health so I will pass
> on such.
happen tomorrow 11/24/2011 on www.faster-than-light.us.
So far this publication is late by several weeks.
BobW
Nov 23, 2011, 12:21:36 PM11/23/11
to
regardless of an observer's relative speed to the source?
You've learned very little.
Bob
admformeto
Nov 23, 2011, 12:55:15 PM11/23/11
to
"BobW" <nimby...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:iemdnXSkmpwDtlDT...@giganews.com...
the Earth
using a method which is not designed to obscure the results such as
continuous Doppler effect which can not be interpreted unambiguously.
Mathew Orman
Jamie
Nov 23, 2011, 6:19:26 PM11/23/11
to
Jamie
John Larkin
Nov 23, 2011, 6:37:56 PM11/23/11
to
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:41:09 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
There are lots of ways to make photons that don't involve electrons.
But the photons all travel at the same speed. This turns out the be
the same speed that particles approach if you accelerate them really
hard. And (very probably) the same speed as neutrinos. Same speed as
gravity.
You really don't like c, do you? You keep struggling against it.
John
wrote:
But the photons all travel at the same speed. This turns out the be
the same speed that particles approach if you accelerate them really
hard. And (very probably) the same speed as neutrinos. Same speed as
gravity.
You really don't like c, do you? You keep struggling against it.
John
admformeto
Nov 23, 2011, 7:40:53 PM11/23/11
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:ii0rc71c0t2bq7bfr...@4ax.com...
C is just a speed number not a limit.
Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
Mathew Orman
http://http://www.faster-than-light.us/
John Larkin
Nov 23, 2011, 7:59:26 PM11/23/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
effect that nothing can go faster.
John
wrote:
effect that nothing can go faster.
John
admformeto
Nov 23, 2011, 8:06:48 PM11/23/11
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
transferred instantaneously.
How much faster than light is That?
His experiments and mathematical model is included in the current
politically correct science.
But you will never guess his name just like Einstein had missed his work.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Sam Wormley
Nov 23, 2011, 8:07:47 PM11/23/11
to
On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
Notice the γ photons produced in the core of the sun when protons
> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
combine with deuterium nuclei. The speed of the resulting photon
is c and is quickly absorbed by a charged particle
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/17f02.jpg
From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Photon momentum
p = hν/c = h/λ
Photon Energy
E = hν
Sam Wormley
Nov 23, 2011, 8:10:54 PM11/23/11
to
On 11/23/11 7:06 PM, admformeto wrote:
> 140 years ago famous physicist had show that information or energy can
> be transferred instantaneously.
That result was shown to be false.
> 140 years ago famous physicist had show that information or energy can
> be transferred instantaneously.
John Larkin
Nov 23, 2011, 8:31:55 PM11/23/11
to
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
>> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>
> Notice the ? photons produced in the core of the sun when protons
>
> Photon Energy
> E = h?
A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
after traveling for zillions of years.
John
wrote:
>On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
>> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>
> combine with deuterium nuclei. The speed of the resulting photon
> is c and is quickly absorbed by a charged particle
>
> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/17f02.jpg
>
> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>
> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> 2. photons propagate at c
> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>
> Photon momentum
> p = h?/c = h/?
> is c and is quickly absorbed by a charged particle
>
> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/17f02.jpg
>
> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>
> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> 2. photons propagate at c
> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>
> Photon momentum
>
> Photon Energy
> E = h?
A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
after traveling for zillions of years.
John
glen herrmannsfeldt
Nov 23, 2011, 9:46:33 PM11/23/11
to
In sci.physics.electromag John Larkin <jjla...@highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote:
(snip)
from the nucleus. I suppose also protons in a circular
accelerator due to synchrotron radiation.
X-rays come from electrons, visible light, IR, microwaves,
radio waves, everything else on down.
-- glen
(snip)
> There are lots of ways to make photons that don't involve electrons.
I can't think of very many. I can only think of gamma rays
from the nucleus. I suppose also protons in a circular
accelerator due to synchrotron radiation.
X-rays come from electrons, visible light, IR, microwaves,
radio waves, everything else on down.
-- glen
alie...@gmail.com
Nov 23, 2011, 11:13:43 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 9:55 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "BobW" <nimbyNOS...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
Try every time radar is used.
Mark L. Fergerson
> "BobW" <nimbyNOS...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
Mark L. Fergerson
Martin Brown
Nov 24, 2011, 3:31:37 AM11/24/11
to
faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
very slightly ftl with high energy neutrinos if you can ever find a way
to make enough of them and detect them reliably.
In extremely dispersive media at exactly the right frequency you can get
situations where a naive measurement of "velocity" appears to show ftl
behaviour. All the reports of apparent FTL signal propagation fall into
this big pothole. And it is virtually certain that the OP has fallen
into this trap too. Actually very hard to tell since his rants here are
basically incoherent gibberish.
A reasonably accessible discussion of phase, group and signal velocity
is online at:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)#Group_and_phase_velocity
(other more rigorous descriptions are online elsewhere)
Someone has done a cute simulator where you can see anomolous dispersion
and play with the parameters online.
http://www.falstad.com/dispersion/groupa.html
(there are a whole lot of nice simulation physics demos on his site)
The problem is that the instant you try to modulate it with a signal
down a very dispersive channel it is scrambled by the very nature of the
medium. Examples include waveguides and the edge of very strong atomic
absorption lines like sodium D - a fun demo.
Regards,
Martin Brown
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 4:52:50 AM11/24/11
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc-dnRb48P4DBFDT...@mchsi.com...
Mathew Orman
John Fields
Nov 24, 2011, 7:11:40 AM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:06:48 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
>140 years ago famous physicist had show that information or energy can be
>transferred instantaneously.
>How much faster than light is That?
>His experiments and mathematical model is included in the current
>politically correct science.
>But you will never guess his name just like Einstein had missed his work.
---
Instead of playing your little games, why don't you just state his
name and point to his work?
--
JF
wrote:
>140 years ago famous physicist had show that information or energy can be
>transferred instantaneously.
>How much faster than light is That?
>His experiments and mathematical model is included in the current
>politically correct science.
>But you will never guess his name just like Einstein had missed his work.
Instead of playing your little games, why don't you just state his
name and point to his work?
--
JF
John Fields
Nov 24, 2011, 7:12:21 AM11/24/11
to
John Larkin
Nov 24, 2011, 9:00:32 AM11/24/11
to
>
>In extremely dispersive media at exactly the right frequency you can get
>situations where a naive measurement of "velocity" appears to show ftl
>behaviour. All the reports of apparent FTL signal propagation fall into
>this big pothole. And it is virtually certain that the OP has fallen
>into this trap too. Actually very hard to tell since his rants here are
>basically incoherent gibberish.
Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
John
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Nov 24, 2011, 9:06:59 AM11/24/11
to
On Nov 23, 7:59 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> >news:ii0rc71c0t2bq7bfr...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:41:09 +0100, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu>
Except spam.
James
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> >news:ii0rc71c0t2bq7bfr...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:41:09 +0100, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu>
James
Sam Wormley
Nov 24, 2011, 9:11:24 AM11/24/11
to
On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
http://faster-than-light.us/images/matheworman.jpg
Copyright © 2011 Tyrell Innovations. All Rights Reserved.
Martin Brown
Nov 24, 2011, 10:09:46 AM11/24/11
to
On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:31:37 +0000, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can go
>> faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>> physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>> than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>> physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
>> very slightly ftl with high energy neutrinos if you can ever find a way
>> to make enough of them and detect them reliably.
>
> That remains in doubt.
Oh I agree. But wouldn't it be fun if it were true!
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:31:37 +0000, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can go
>> faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>> physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>> than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>> physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
>> very slightly ftl with high energy neutrinos if you can ever find a way
>> to make enough of them and detect them reliably.
>
> That remains in doubt.
>
>>
>> In extremely dispersive media at exactly the right frequency you can get
>> situations where a naive measurement of "velocity" appears to show ftl
>> behaviour. All the reports of apparent FTL signal propagation fall into
>> this big pothole. And it is virtually certain that the OP has fallen
>> into this trap too. Actually very hard to tell since his rants here are
>> basically incoherent gibberish.
>
> Things like ftl phase velocities are essentially optical illusions.
They are real and when you are doing ultra precision measurements have
>>
>> In extremely dispersive media at exactly the right frequency you can get
>> situations where a naive measurement of "velocity" appears to show ftl
>> behaviour. All the reports of apparent FTL signal propagation fall into
>> this big pothole. And it is virtually certain that the OP has fallen
>> into this trap too. Actually very hard to tell since his rants here are
>> basically incoherent gibberish.
>
> Things like ftl phase velocities are essentially optical illusions.
to be corrected for. The speed of light with error bars as a function of
time is a salutary lesson in how an error made by a respected expert can
remain undetected for quite a while. If memory serves it was a microwave
based standing wave method in a vacuum waveguide and one tiny correction
for imperfect vacuum was applied in the wrong sense. It didn't show up
until a new improved technique gave even more precise answers that were
in very close agreement with a previous technique. Subsequent analysis
showed in the interim all the other experimenters had replicated the
original experimenters error in their analysis.
(Actually I would love to find the original textbook this graph was in -
I think an undergraduate relativity? text of about the 1970's)
The world is getting even more complicated with crazy metamaterials that
work in the optical now looking like a realistic possibility.
> Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
>
> John
faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
Regards,
Martin Brown
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 10:23:13 AM11/24/11
to
"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:m4dsc7l24qghoqa3n...@4ax.com...
experiment in Dresden, Germany.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Bill Sloman
Nov 24, 2011, 11:01:19 AM11/24/11
to
possible route, which can fool you into thinking that it does.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 11:06:33 AM11/24/11
to
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always zero
regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Sam Wormley
Nov 24, 2011, 11:30:15 AM11/24/11
to
On 11/24/11 9:23 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
> Yes, but it will by published after the public demonstration of the
> experiment in Dresden, Germany.
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
>
>
> Yes, but it will by published after the public demonstration of the
> experiment in Dresden, Germany.
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
>
PD
Nov 24, 2011, 11:34:56 AM11/24/11
to
Nov 25 2011. Mathew Orman has a noted history of late or nonexistent
delivery.
Sam Wormley
Nov 24, 2011, 11:35:49 AM11/24/11
to
On 11/24/11 10:06 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
> Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>
> http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
This is a measurement of the rise time of an electrical pulse
>
> Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>
> http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
band limited by the oscilloscope.
>
> In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always
> zero regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 11:36:27 AM11/24/11
to
news:K4ydncTspJWF7FPT...@mchsi.com...
Where did you see it?
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
PD
Nov 24, 2011, 11:36:36 AM11/24/11
to
No wait. Today you say it will be tomorrow -- Friday the 25th.
Martin Brown
Nov 24, 2011, 11:44:55 AM11/24/11
to
particular instance.
Regards,
Martin Brown
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 11:49:22 AM11/24/11
to
news:jalsa3$t0s$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Yes, you have no clue.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Nico Coesel
Nov 24, 2011, 12:01:14 PM11/24/11
to
Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto"<admfo...@onet.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> C is just a speed number not a limit.
>>> Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
>>>
>>> Mathew Orman
>>>
>>> http://http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>>>
>>
>>
>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>
>> John
>
>Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can go
>faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
Quantum entanglement anyone? Information in itself is not a physical
>On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto"<admfo...@onet.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> C is just a speed number not a limit.
>>> Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
>>>
>>> Mathew Orman
>>>
>>> http://http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>>>
>>
>>
>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>
>> John
>
>Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can go
>faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
entity which more or less implies the laws of physics don't apply.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Fields
Nov 24, 2011, 12:49:27 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:23:13 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
---
That's not what I was referring to; I was asking for a link to your
claim that: "140 years ago famous physicist had show that information
--
JF
wrote:
That's not what I was referring to; I was asking for a link to your
claim that: "140 years ago famous physicist had show that information
or energy can be transferred instantaneously."
Got one?
--
JF
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 12:51:27 PM11/24/11
to
"Nico Coesel" <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:4ece773a....@news.kpn.nl...
"Quantum entanglement " pure sci.fi.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 12:54:42 PM11/24/11
to
news:mp0tc7dljs9cfkuug...@4ax.com...
I say again:
Yes, I got one and it (the link) will be published after the public
demonstration of the phenomena which will (the event) take place in Dresden,
Yes, I got one and it (the link) will be published after the public
demonstration of the phenomena which will (the event) take place in Dresden,
Sam Wormley
Nov 24, 2011, 1:20:52 PM11/24/11
to
______________
Entanglement between macroscopic objects generated by dissipation
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
"When generating entanglement between two objects, physicists typically
try to minimize the objects’ interactions with the environment, since
this interaction causes decoherence. But contrary to this thinking,
scientists in a new study have experimentally demonstrated that
dissipation caused by interaction with the environment can continuously
generate entanglement between two macroscopic objects (two ensembles of
cesium atoms containing about 1 trillion atoms all together). By
combining the dissipative mechanism with continuous measurements, the
researchers could achieve steady state entanglement between the two
atomic ensembles for up to an hour.
“We have generated entanglement which is ready-to-use at any unspecified
instant in time,” Polzik told PhysOrg.com. “This should be a useful
feature for applications where complex entangled networks are required.
But perhaps even more important is that we have made the first step in
showing how entanglement can be generated by dissipation. With this
demonstration, other proposals which use dissipation for quantum
computing and communication will hopefully attract the attention of
experimentalists.”
See:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
______________
Entangled En Masse: Physicists Crank Out Billions of Entangled
Nucleus-Electron Pairs on Demand Setting ensembles of solid-state
particles into entangled pairs holds promise for quantum computation
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
"Entanglement, that most counterintuitive quantum phenomenon by which
particles share an unseen link that aligns their properties, is looking
more mundane all the time. Just last week two groups of researchers
reported entangling a photon with a crystal-based device, potentially
paving the way for solid-state memories that can store and then release
entangled particles as needed.
"Another week, another advance. In a paper published online January 19
in Nature a team of physicists announced that they have developed the
capability to churn out pairs of entangled particles, billions at a
time. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The
advance might someday allow for the streamlined development of quantum
processors with a large number of quantum bits working in parallel".
See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
Entanglement between macroscopic objects generated by dissipation
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
"When generating entanglement between two objects, physicists typically
try to minimize the objects’ interactions with the environment, since
this interaction causes decoherence. But contrary to this thinking,
scientists in a new study have experimentally demonstrated that
dissipation caused by interaction with the environment can continuously
generate entanglement between two macroscopic objects (two ensembles of
cesium atoms containing about 1 trillion atoms all together). By
combining the dissipative mechanism with continuous measurements, the
researchers could achieve steady state entanglement between the two
atomic ensembles for up to an hour.
“We have generated entanglement which is ready-to-use at any unspecified
instant in time,” Polzik told PhysOrg.com. “This should be a useful
feature for applications where complex entangled networks are required.
But perhaps even more important is that we have made the first step in
showing how entanglement can be generated by dissipation. With this
demonstration, other proposals which use dissipation for quantum
computing and communication will hopefully attract the attention of
experimentalists.”
See:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html
______________
Entangled En Masse: Physicists Crank Out Billions of Entangled
Nucleus-Electron Pairs on Demand Setting ensembles of solid-state
particles into entangled pairs holds promise for quantum computation
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
"Entanglement, that most counterintuitive quantum phenomenon by which
particles share an unseen link that aligns their properties, is looking
more mundane all the time. Just last week two groups of researchers
reported entangling a photon with a crystal-based device, potentially
paving the way for solid-state memories that can store and then release
entangled particles as needed.
"Another week, another advance. In a paper published online January 19
in Nature a team of physicists announced that they have developed the
capability to churn out pairs of entangled particles, billions at a
time. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The
advance might someday allow for the streamlined development of quantum
processors with a large number of quantum bits working in parallel".
See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entanglement&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20110121
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 1:48:37 PM11/24/11
to
news:K4ydncbspJWZFlPT...@mchsi.com...
Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align itself
to common force field vector.
This is like saying that two men stand right up because of gravity entangles
them.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
to common force field vector.
This is like saying that two men stand right up because of gravity entangles
them.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
PD
Nov 24, 2011, 2:14:20 PM11/24/11
to
On 11/24/2011 12:48 PM, admformeto wrote:
>
>
> Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
> itself to common force field vector.
Common? No. That's just the point. The force field is not common.
>
>
> Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
> itself to common force field vector.
John Larkin
Nov 24, 2011, 2:59:42 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
Clear your confusion? Now that's a challenge.
John
wrote:
John
John Larkin
Nov 24, 2011, 3:01:51 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:01:14 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:
>Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto"<admfo...@onet.eu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>> C is just a speed number not a limit.
>>>> Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
>>>>
>>>> Mathew Orman
>>>>
>>>> http://http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can go
>>faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>>physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>>than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>>physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
>
>Quantum entanglement anyone? Information in itself is not a physical
>entity which more or less implies the laws of physics don't apply.
Quantum entanglement looks like spooky instantaneous effects over
distances, but it can't be used to send information faster than c.
John
wrote:
>Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 24/11/2011 00:59, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto"<admfo...@onet.eu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>> C is just a speed number not a limit.
>>>> Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
>>>>
>>>> Mathew Orman
>>>>
>>>> http://http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> C is a fundamental property of this universe. It's sort of a side
>>> effect that nothing can go faster.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>Be very careful how you phrase that John. It isn't that *nothing* can go
>>faster it is that you cannot transfer *information* faster than c. No
>>physical object with mass and no information can be transferred faster
>>than the speed of light according to our present understanding of
>>physics. This might have to be tweaked perhaps to say you can signal at
>
>Quantum entanglement anyone? Information in itself is not a physical
>entity which more or less implies the laws of physics don't apply.
distances, but it can't be used to send information faster than c.
John
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 3:25:49 PM11/24/11
to
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
propagating with no delay over 2 meter distance in space filled by air and
nothing else.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Michael A. Terrell
Nov 24, 2011, 3:31:59 PM11/24/11
to
PD wrote:
>
> On 11/24/2011 12:48 PM, admformeto wrote:
> >
> > Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
> > itself to common force field vector.
> Common? No. That's just the point. The force field is not common.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 3:38:35 PM11/24/11
to
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rdidnbBiB9ZKNFPT...@earthlink.com...
man standing next to each other.
Electrons in CRT gun are not accelerated by common electrical force of the
field gradient.
What else you going to claim?
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Nov 24, 2011, 4:33:08 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:31:59 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>PD wrote:
>>
>> On 11/24/2011 12:48 PM, admformeto wrote:
>> >
>> > Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
>> > itself to common force field vector.
>
>
> You're the one writing bad Science Fiction.
>
>
>> Common? No. That's just the point. The force field is not common.
>
>
> Mathew Orman is hiding behind his usual 'Farce Field'. :(
The Farce is with him?
<mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>PD wrote:
>>
>> On 11/24/2011 12:48 PM, admformeto wrote:
>> >
>> > Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
>> > itself to common force field vector.
>
>
> You're the one writing bad Science Fiction.
>
>
>> Common? No. That's just the point. The force field is not common.
>
>
> Mathew Orman is hiding behind his usual 'Farce Field'. :(
John Larkin
Nov 24, 2011, 4:41:45 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:25:49 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
You're absolutely right. I'd never claim a thing like that.
John
wrote:
John
Michael A. Terrell
Nov 24, 2011, 5:18:35 PM11/24/11
to
to Sloman, Dimbulb or Maynard?
Michael A. Terrell
Nov 24, 2011, 5:20:24 PM11/24/11
to
admformeto wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rdidnbBiB9ZKNFPT...@earthlink.com...
> >
> > PD wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/24/2011 12:48 PM, admformeto wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
> >> > itself to common force field vector.
> >
> >
> > You're the one writing bad Science Fiction.
> >
> >
> >> Common? No. That's just the point. The force field is not common.
> >
> >
> > Mathew Orman is hiding behind his usual 'Farce Field'. :(
>
> According to you gravity would not be a common force field gradient for two
> man standing next to each other.
As always, you try to shove words into peeople's mouths. Typical
> man standing next to each other.
jackass mentality.
> Electrons in CRT gun are not accelerated by common electrical force of the
> field gradient.
> What else you going to claim?
John Fields
Nov 24, 2011, 7:03:56 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:48:37 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
---
You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot, since entangled
particles are purported to be able to exchange information
instantaneously, once entangled, regardless of the distance between
them.
Your claim is rather specious in that you don't explain how subluminal
or superluminal performance can be elicited from a photon in a vacuum.
--
JF
wrote:
You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot, since entangled
particles are purported to be able to exchange information
instantaneously, once entangled, regardless of the distance between
them.
Your claim is rather specious in that you don't explain how subluminal
or superluminal performance can be elicited from a photon in a vacuum.
--
JF
admformeto
Nov 24, 2011, 7:19:19 PM11/24/11
to
news:e6mtc7thsf58v4u72...@4ax.com...
I do not claim any of such.
If a photon is created by conventional source it will propagate with
relative speed of c.
To create photon which propagates with other speed one must create
appropriate charge oscillator structure.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
If a photon is created by conventional source it will propagate with
relative speed of c.
To create photon which propagates with other speed one must create
appropriate charge oscillator structure.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Sam Wormley
Nov 24, 2011, 8:07:58 PM11/24/11
to
On 11/24/11 6:19 PM, admformeto wrote:
> If a photon is created by conventional source it will propagate with
> relative speed of c.
> To create photon which propagates with other speed one must create
> appropriate charge oscillator structure.
>
> Mathew Orman
If a photon is created by any source it propagates at c.
> If a photon is created by conventional source it will propagate with
> relative speed of c.
> To create photon which propagates with other speed one must create
> appropriate charge oscillator structure.
>
> Mathew Orman
From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
2. photons propagate at c
3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Photon momentum
p = hν/c = h/λ
Photon Energy
E = hν
Alfonso
Nov 25, 2011, 6:14:10 AM11/25/11
to
On 23/11/11 14:38, PD wrote:
but Consistent with Wallace's analysis of radar data.
Consistent with Pioneer data.
Consistent with light curves from some binary sources.
You pays your money and takes your choice.
If an experiment threatens the status quo i.e. neutrinos breaking the
speed limit the experiment is subject to proper critical analysis by
people who have an incentive to discredit it. If an experiment appears
to show what physicists want to hear it is accepted willingly and
published without difficulty. This has been happening since relativity
was first published.
De-Sitter for example 1913 is one such, still quoted yet easily
dismissed. What you have is a distant star system at a point O.
You have no independent verification of what is there only data and that
is somewhat fuzzy.
De-Sitter assumed relativity to be correct and worked out a description
of what was at O consistent with relativity (this is easy to do if SR is
correct).
Let us describe that description as D(r) (the description of what is
there based on the assumption of the truth of relativity)
What De-Sitter assumed was that D(r) is an accurate description of
what actually is at O. He argued that as D(r) is an accurate
description, if Emission theory were true it would not produce the data
- so emission theory can't be true. A totally circular argument but very
welcome to those who wanted their beliefs to be confirmed.
To test if Emission theory is correct it is necessary to try and
discover a different description D(e) of what is at O which, if emission
theory is true, would result in the known data. This is exceedingly
difficult. It requires that one makes a guess at what is at O, calculate
what data would result if emission theory is true, compare it with the
actual data then by an iterative process make modifications to the guess
until a match is achieved. This process is hard enough when you have a
computer. DeSitter's slide rule would not be up to the task.
I should also mention that DeSitter was selective in choice of data sets.
No one looked critically at the H&K experiment except Essen who designed
the atomic clocks and knew more about their characteristics than anyone
else on the planet. The assumptions H&K made were wrong and the accuracy
wasn't as good as they claimed for clocks used in that manner.... but
why spoil the party? The journal which published the experiment refused
to publish Essen's criticism. A few decades later the raw data was
released and proper analysis showed it to be inconclusive.
Wallace showed that a massive unexplained error in radar data
disappeared if you assumed light speed is c+v. A subset of the data,
incapable of showing this effect was retained and the rest deliberately
destroyed. Wallace's work was passed off as insignificant because of the
small data sample.
The Alvager Nilsson and Kjellman experiment 1963 concluded that the
invariance postulate was verified. Unfortunately Waldron showed their
actual published figures supported emission theory. Alvager had another
go in 1964 and this time he got the "right" answer - it is this later
paper which is quoted. This was a fore-runner of Fox & Filippas. Those
doing the experiments are not objectively, without bias, trying to
determine whether or not light speed is source dependent their one
objective it is to show that it is *not* so as to gain the approval of
their peers and theirs be the experiment always quoted. That is why Fox
looked at Ritz's emission theory. Not to see if it was viable but to
attempt to show - successfully - that evidence against it did not stand
up to close scrutiny. In other words to discredit previous evidence
(including Alvager) so that his would be quoted as the first experiment
to justify physics adoption of SR and its rejection of the simpler
Emission theory.
> On 11/23/2011 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
>> Read and learn: Velocity of light relative to the source is
>> constant because of constant mass of electrons which are part of
>> the source oscillating structure.
>
> Counter to the results of experiments such as Filippas and Fox.
>> Read and learn: Velocity of light relative to the source is
>> constant because of constant mass of electrons which are part of
>> the source oscillating structure.
>
but Consistent with Wallace's analysis of radar data.
Consistent with Pioneer data.
Consistent with light curves from some binary sources.
You pays your money and takes your choice.
If an experiment threatens the status quo i.e. neutrinos breaking the
speed limit the experiment is subject to proper critical analysis by
people who have an incentive to discredit it. If an experiment appears
to show what physicists want to hear it is accepted willingly and
published without difficulty. This has been happening since relativity
was first published.
De-Sitter for example 1913 is one such, still quoted yet easily
dismissed. What you have is a distant star system at a point O.
You have no independent verification of what is there only data and that
is somewhat fuzzy.
De-Sitter assumed relativity to be correct and worked out a description
of what was at O consistent with relativity (this is easy to do if SR is
correct).
Let us describe that description as D(r) (the description of what is
there based on the assumption of the truth of relativity)
What De-Sitter assumed was that D(r) is an accurate description of
what actually is at O. He argued that as D(r) is an accurate
description, if Emission theory were true it would not produce the data
- so emission theory can't be true. A totally circular argument but very
welcome to those who wanted their beliefs to be confirmed.
To test if Emission theory is correct it is necessary to try and
discover a different description D(e) of what is at O which, if emission
theory is true, would result in the known data. This is exceedingly
difficult. It requires that one makes a guess at what is at O, calculate
what data would result if emission theory is true, compare it with the
actual data then by an iterative process make modifications to the guess
until a match is achieved. This process is hard enough when you have a
computer. DeSitter's slide rule would not be up to the task.
I should also mention that DeSitter was selective in choice of data sets.
No one looked critically at the H&K experiment except Essen who designed
the atomic clocks and knew more about their characteristics than anyone
else on the planet. The assumptions H&K made were wrong and the accuracy
wasn't as good as they claimed for clocks used in that manner.... but
why spoil the party? The journal which published the experiment refused
to publish Essen's criticism. A few decades later the raw data was
released and proper analysis showed it to be inconclusive.
Wallace showed that a massive unexplained error in radar data
disappeared if you assumed light speed is c+v. A subset of the data,
incapable of showing this effect was retained and the rest deliberately
destroyed. Wallace's work was passed off as insignificant because of the
small data sample.
The Alvager Nilsson and Kjellman experiment 1963 concluded that the
invariance postulate was verified. Unfortunately Waldron showed their
actual published figures supported emission theory. Alvager had another
go in 1964 and this time he got the "right" answer - it is this later
paper which is quoted. This was a fore-runner of Fox & Filippas. Those
doing the experiments are not objectively, without bias, trying to
determine whether or not light speed is source dependent their one
objective it is to show that it is *not* so as to gain the approval of
their peers and theirs be the experiment always quoted. That is why Fox
looked at Ritz's emission theory. Not to see if it was viable but to
attempt to show - successfully - that evidence against it did not stand
up to close scrutiny. In other words to discredit previous evidence
(including Alvager) so that his would be quoted as the first experiment
to justify physics adoption of SR and its rejection of the simpler
Emission theory.
Martin Brown
Nov 25, 2011, 6:22:37 AM11/25/11
to
On 24/11/2011 16:49, admformeto wrote:
>
>
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jalsa3$t0s$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 24/11/2011 16:06, admformeto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Confusion between phase, group and signal velocities account for all
>>>> the faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin Brown
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>>
>>> http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>>
>>> In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always
>>> zero regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
>>>
>>> Mathew Orman
>>>
>>
>
>
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jalsa3$t0s$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 24/11/2011 16:06, admformeto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Confusion between phase, group and signal velocities account for all
>>>> the faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin Brown
>>>
>>> Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>>
>>> http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>>
>>> In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always
>>> zero regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
>>>
>>> Mathew Orman
>>>
>>
>> My money is on ignorance and stupidity in equal measure in this
>> particular instance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> Yes, you have no clue.
>
> Mathew Orman
I will let history be the judge of that.
>> particular instance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> Yes, you have no clue.
>
> Mathew Orman
If your screenshot shows anything at all it is that you do not have the
first clue about how you would go about measuring the speed of light.
At best it might show that your scope has a decent trigger circuit and
that is only if the trace is genuine. How are you going to power your
spectacular launch of this "product" in Dresden? Using an E-Cat?
Self publicising URL clipped.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
John Fields
Nov 25, 2011, 8:17:22 AM11/25/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:40:53 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
high index of refraction.
--
JF
wrote:
>
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:ii0rc71c0t2bq7bfr...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:41:09 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:41:09 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Read and learn:
>>>Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>>>mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>>
>>>Read and learn:
>>>Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>>>mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>>>Thus relative to source light propagates in constant speed regardless of
>>>its
>>>wavelength.
>>>To produce light which propagates with different speed one must design
>>>charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
>>>The same applies to EM waves.
>>>
>>>Mathew Orman
>>>
>>>Public release record on November 23 2011.
>>
>>>its
>>>wavelength.
>>>To produce light which propagates with different speed one must design
>>>charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
>>>The same applies to EM waves.
>>>
>>>Mathew Orman
>>>
>>>Public release record on November 23 2011.
>>
>> There are lots of ways to make photons that don't involve electrons.
>> But the photons all travel at the same speed. This turns out the be
>> the same speed that particles approach if you accelerate them really
>> hard. And (very probably) the same speed as neutrinos. Same speed as
>> gravity.
>>
>> You really don't like c, do you? You keep struggling against it.
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
>> But the photons all travel at the same speed. This turns out the be
>> the same speed that particles approach if you accelerate them really
>> hard. And (very probably) the same speed as neutrinos. Same speed as
>> gravity.
>>
>> You really don't like c, do you? You keep struggling against it.
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
>Why?
>C is just a speed number not a limit.
>Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
---
>C is just a speed number not a limit.
>Wait till Monday and see it for your self on my website.
First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
see it for your self on my website."
Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
high index of refraction.
--
JF
John Fields
Nov 25, 2011, 8:34:08 AM11/25/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
>
>
>"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
>
>
>"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jalmnm$bos$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 24/11/2011 14:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>> Simple electrical measurement errors are, too.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Confusion between phase, group and signal velocities account for all the
>> faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>
>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>
>In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always zero
>regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
---
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> Confusion between phase, group and signal velocities account for all the
>> faster than light claims ever made. That or stupidity.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>
>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>
>In the experiment the pulse vary its amplitude but the delay is always zero
>regardless of the distance between source and sensor.
You haven't shown any of that, all you've done is shown an image of a
pulse with a delay of 1.21ns from the _image's_ 10% to 90% amplitude
points so, clearly, your confusion is profound to the point where it
would be difficult to lift the veil.
--
JF
admformeto
Nov 25, 2011, 8:41:21 AM11/25/11
to
news:ZTKzq.30022$Mg.2...@newsfe13.iad...
You will see stereoscopic 3D video recording of the experiment shortly.
Published or various download sites including Youtube.
Those who will attend the show in Dresden will be able to use their own test
equipment and do the experiment by themselves. After Dresden my website will
present all the physics and math modeling as well as the name of famous
scientist who 140 ago produced experimental and mathematical evidence of
instantaneous transfer of energy or information.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Published or various download sites including Youtube.
Those who will attend the show in Dresden will be able to use their own test
equipment and do the experiment by themselves. After Dresden my website will
present all the physics and math modeling as well as the name of famous
scientist who 140 ago produced experimental and mathematical evidence of
instantaneous transfer of energy or information.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
John Fields
Nov 25, 2011, 8:42:06 AM11/25/11
to
Nonsense.
It's more like saying that two entangled men on opposite sides of the
Earth can talk to each other at speeds faster than it takes light to
propagate the distance between them.
--
JF
admformeto
Nov 25, 2011, 8:45:10 AM11/25/11
to
news:vl5vc7ps66dpiglqp...@4ax.com...
Yes, because the reply was to group of people who claim that apparent effect
is based on group velocity. And that is why I published just the pulse and
ask them to explain group velocity based on single shot of such pulse.
You will see the stereoscopic 3d video of the full experiment shortly.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
is based on group velocity. And that is why I published just the pulse and
ask them to explain group velocity based on single shot of such pulse.
You will see the stereoscopic 3d video of the full experiment shortly.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
admformeto
Nov 25, 2011, 8:47:15 AM11/25/11
to
news:eq4vc79kjsesp69ev...@4ax.com...
I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
John Fields
Nov 25, 2011, 8:47:20 AM11/25/11
to
Your picture shows nothing of the sort, and if you think it does
perhaps that's the source of your confusion.
--
JF
John Fields
Nov 25, 2011, 8:54:48 AM11/25/11
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:19:19 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
wrote:
>
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:e6mtc7thsf58v4u72...@4ax.com...
You keep saying that, but you never elaborate.
Precisely what is this "appropriate charge oscillator structure"?
--
JF
wrote:
>
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:e6mtc7thsf58v4u72...@4ax.com...
>> ---
>> You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot, since entangled
>> particles are purported to be able to exchange information
>> instantaneously, once entangled, regardless of the distance between
>> them.
>>
>> Your claim is rather specious in that you don't explain how subluminal
>> or superluminal performance can be elicited from a photon in a vacuum.
>>
>>
>> --
>> JF
>
>I do not claim any of such.
>If a photon is created by conventional source it will propagate with
>relative speed of c.
>To create photon which propagates with other speed one must create
>appropriate charge oscillator structure.
---
>> You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot, since entangled
>> particles are purported to be able to exchange information
>> instantaneously, once entangled, regardless of the distance between
>> them.
>>
>> Your claim is rather specious in that you don't explain how subluminal
>> or superluminal performance can be elicited from a photon in a vacuum.
>>
>>
>> --
>> JF
>
>I do not claim any of such.
>If a photon is created by conventional source it will propagate with
>relative speed of c.
>To create photon which propagates with other speed one must create
>appropriate charge oscillator structure.
You keep saying that, but you never elaborate.
Precisely what is this "appropriate charge oscillator structure"?
--
JF
admformeto
Nov 25, 2011, 9:00:15 AM11/25/11
to
news:2r6vc711tjb6mqv2g...@4ax.com...
Both experiment and spice simulation show zero delay over the arbitrary
distance.
But wait, when you see the experiment maybe then you will point to the
source of my confusion.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
distance.
But wait, when you see the experiment maybe then you will point to the
source of my confusion.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
admformeto
Nov 25, 2011, 9:07:28 AM11/25/11
to
news:qk6vc7thak6dd3do8...@4ax.com...
Which is not impossible if one man turns on an electromagnet strong enough
to affect the Earth's magnetic field thus allowing the second man on the
other side to detect changes in magnetic field gradient and interpreting it
as information.
Such signal transfer will be instantaneous and the common Earth magnetic
force field will be the entangling element, so to speak to satisfy your
theory.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
to affect the Earth's magnetic field thus allowing the second man on the
other side to detect changes in magnetic field gradient and interpreting it
as information.
Such signal transfer will be instantaneous and the common Earth magnetic
force field will be the entangling element, so to speak to satisfy your
theory.
Mathew Orman
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Martin Brown
Nov 25, 2011, 9:38:11 AM11/25/11
to
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Nov 25, 2011, 9:52:16 AM11/25/11
to
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 15:00:15 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu> wrote:
>
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:2r6vc711tjb6mqv2g...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:25:49 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:cg8tc7l6klqke8etv...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clear your confusion? Now that's a challenge.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, since you cannot claim group velocity on a single 1 ns pulse which is
>>>propagating with no delay over 2 meter distance in space filled by air and
>>>nothing else.
>>
>> ---
>> Your picture shows nothing of the sort, and if you think it does
>> perhaps that's the source of your confusion.
>>
>> --
>> JF
>
>Both experiment and spice simulation show zero delay over the arbitrary
>distance.
Spice simulation?! ROTFLOL!
>
>
>"John Fields" <jfi...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>news:2r6vc711tjb6mqv2g...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:25:49 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:cg8tc7l6klqke8etv...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:06:33 +0100, "admformeto" <admfo...@onet.eu>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Then perhaps you can clear my confusion based on the pulse image:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.icesterf.webd.pl/samples/pulse.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clear your confusion? Now that's a challenge.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, since you cannot claim group velocity on a single 1 ns pulse which is
>>>propagating with no delay over 2 meter distance in space filled by air and
>>>nothing else.
>>
>> ---
>> Your picture shows nothing of the sort, and if you think it does
>> perhaps that's the source of your confusion.
>>
>> --
>> JF
>
>Both experiment and spice simulation show zero delay over the arbitrary
>distance.
>But wait, when you see the experiment maybe then you will point to the
>source of my confusion.
Michael A. Terrell
Nov 25, 2011, 11:44:18 AM11/25/11
to
admformeto wrote:
>
> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
all sides.
PD
Nov 25, 2011, 12:52:33 PM11/25/11
to
On 11/25/2011 5:14 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 23/11/11 14:38, PD wrote:
>> On 11/23/2011 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>> Read and learn: Velocity of light relative to the source is
>>> constant because of constant mass of electrons which are part of
>>> the source oscillating structure.
>>
>> Counter to the results of experiments such as Filippas and Fox.
>
> but Consistent with Wallace's analysis of radar data.
And inconsistent with everyone else's analysis.
> On 23/11/11 14:38, PD wrote:
>> On 11/23/2011 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>> Read and learn: Velocity of light relative to the source is
>>> constant because of constant mass of electrons which are part of
>>> the source oscillating structure.
>>
>> Counter to the results of experiments such as Filippas and Fox.
>
> but Consistent with Wallace's analysis of radar data.
> Consistent with Pioneer data.
Actually, no. And the Pioneer "anomaly" is not an anomaly. You know that
right?
> Consistent with light curves from some binary sources.
the one I mentioned above.
>
> You pays your money and takes your choice.
don't you?
>
> If an experiment threatens the status quo i.e. neutrinos breaking the
> speed limit the experiment is subject to proper critical analysis by
> people who have an incentive to discredit it. If an experiment appears
> to show what physicists want to hear it is accepted willingly and
> published without difficulty. This has been happening since relativity
> was first published.
I think you've got a highly jaundiced view of how science works. The
OPERA results are very interesting. Keep in mind that the experimenters
got EXACTLY what they were looking for when they opened up their
results. They asked for critiques that would point to sources of error
that they had inadequately addressed, and within DAYS they got solid
responses to that, and they set to work to take new data that would
address those sources of error. In less than three months they have
revised their findings and produced a MUCH better experimental paper
than what they had before. In addition, within a couple weeks there was
an analysis by two prominent theorists, one of whom is a Nobel laureate,
pointing out another interesting puzzle if the result turns out to be
true -- the absence of radiation that would lead to energy degradation
-- and within three weeks the ICARUS collaboration had re-analyzed their
data to check for the experimental signature of that radiation. The
MINOS collaboration is heavily engaged to make OPERA's measurement
themselves, which will either result in corroboration or disagreement.
This has all happened within ONE CALENDAR QUARTER. This level of
activity is hardly the kind of thing you would associate with dismissal.
Moreover, this has all happened at a pace that would have been UNHEARD
of in the early 20th century.
I have no idea what kind of unrealistic expectations you have for how
science should handle this.
>
> De-Sitter for example 1913 is one such, still quoted yet easily
> dismissed. What you have is a distant star system at a point O.
> You have no independent verification of what is there only data and that
> is somewhat fuzzy.
the same subject since 1913. There's quite a bit of it.
In all the cases you mention, you seem concern with early analyses of
early results, as though those constitute the final words on the
subject. They do not, and I would ask you to also include in your survey
both later results and later analyses, which are of higher quality.
I really don't get the mentality that says, "Based on early analyses of
early data, then further data or further analyses should have not been
necessary, and that later work should be dismissed because it should not
have been done. Rather, attention should have been directed in a
different direction, and that was not done. The later data and the later
analyses shall not be considered, because of this impropriety in procedure."
PD
Nov 25, 2011, 12:58:43 PM11/25/11
to
On 11/25/2011 7:47 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
>>
>> ---
>> First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
>>
>> Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
>>
>> Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
>> see it for your self on my website."
>>
>> Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
>> high index of refraction.
>>
>> --
>> JF
>
> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
>
Then why do you *advertise* dates that you cannot meet?
>
>>
>> ---
>> First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
>>
>> Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
>>
>> Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
>> see it for your self on my website."
>>
>> Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
>> high index of refraction.
>>
>> --
>> JF
>
> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
>
>
Surely this practice has gotten you in some trouble.
PD
Nov 25, 2011, 1:01:42 PM11/25/11
to
On 11/24/2011 2:38 PM, admformeto wrote:
>
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rdidnbBiB9ZKNFPT...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> PD wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2011 12:48 PM, admformeto wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
>>> > itself to common force field vector.
>>
>>
>> You're the one writing bad Science Fiction.
>>
>>
>>> Common? No. That's just the point. The force field is not common.
>>
>>
>> Mathew Orman is hiding behind his usual 'Farce Field'. :(
>>
>>
>> --
>> You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
>
> According to you gravity would not be a common force field gradient for
> two man standing next to each other.
No, that's not what I said at all.
>
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rdidnbBiB9ZKNFPT...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> PD wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2011 12:48 PM, admformeto wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align
>>> > itself to common force field vector.
>>
>>
>> You're the one writing bad Science Fiction.
>>
>>
>>> Common? No. That's just the point. The force field is not common.
>>
>>
>> Mathew Orman is hiding behind his usual 'Farce Field'. :(
>>
>>
>> --
>> You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
>
> According to you gravity would not be a common force field gradient for
> two man standing next to each other.
In the case AT HAND, which had to do with polarized particles, the
polarizing field was not in common to both particles.
PD
Nov 25, 2011, 1:02:58 PM11/25/11
to
On 11/24/2011 6:03 PM, John Fields wrote:
> You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot, since entangled
> particles are purported to be able to exchange information
> instantaneously, once entangled, regardless of the distance between
> them.
No sir. That is not what is purported. There is no exchange of
> You seem to be shooting yourself in the foot, since entangled
> particles are purported to be able to exchange information
> instantaneously, once entangled, regardless of the distance between
> them.
information in this process. Please reread.
alie...@gmail.com
Nov 25, 2011, 1:15:04 PM11/25/11
to
On Nov 25, 6:07 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "John Fields" <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>
> news:qk6vc7thak6dd3do8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:48:37 +0100, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
faster than light. Light *is* a perturbation of an established EM
field.
Mark L. Fergerson
> "John Fields" <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>
> news:qk6vc7thak6dd3do8...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:48:37 +0100, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:K4ydncbspJWZFlPT...@mchsi.com...
> >>> On 11/24/11 11:51 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
> >>>> "Quantum entanglement " pure sci.fi.
>
> >>>> Mathew Orman
>
> >>> ______________
>
> >>> Entanglement between macroscopic objects generated by dissipation
>
> >>>http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipat...
> >>> On 11/24/11 11:51 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
> >>>> "Quantum entanglement " pure sci.fi.
>
> >>>> Mathew Orman
>
> >>> ______________
>
> >>> Entanglement between macroscopic objects generated by dissipation
>
>
> >>> "When generating entanglement between two objects, physicists typically
> >>> try to minimize the objects' interactions with the environment, since
> >>> this
> >>> interaction causes decoherence. But contrary to this thinking,
> >>> scientists
> >>> in a new study have experimentally demonstrated that dissipation caused
> >>> by
> >>> interaction with the environment can continuously generate entanglement
> >>> between two macroscopic objects (two ensembles of cesium atoms
> >>> containing
> >>> about 1 trillion atoms all together). By combining the dissipative
> >>> mechanism with continuous measurements, the researchers could achieve
> >>> steady state entanglement between the two atomic ensembles for up to an
> >>> hour.
>
> >>> "We have generated entanglement which is ready-to-use at any unspecified
> >>> instant in time," Polzik told PhysOrg.com. "This should be a useful
> >>> feature for applications where complex entangled networks are required.
> >>> But perhaps even more important is that we have made the first step in
> >>> showing how entanglement can be generated by dissipation. With this
> >>> demonstration, other proposals which use dissipation for quantum
> >>> computing
> >>> and communication will hopefully attract the attention of
> >>> experimentalists."
>
> >>> See:
> >>>http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipat...
> >>> "When generating entanglement between two objects, physicists typically
> >>> try to minimize the objects' interactions with the environment, since
> >>> this
> >>> interaction causes decoherence. But contrary to this thinking,
> >>> scientists
> >>> in a new study have experimentally demonstrated that dissipation caused
> >>> by
> >>> interaction with the environment can continuously generate entanglement
> >>> between two macroscopic objects (two ensembles of cesium atoms
> >>> containing
> >>> about 1 trillion atoms all together). By combining the dissipative
> >>> mechanism with continuous measurements, the researchers could achieve
> >>> steady state entanglement between the two atomic ensembles for up to an
> >>> hour.
>
> >>> "We have generated entanglement which is ready-to-use at any unspecified
> >>> instant in time," Polzik told PhysOrg.com. "This should be a useful
> >>> feature for applications where complex entangled networks are required.
> >>> But perhaps even more important is that we have made the first step in
> >>> showing how entanglement can be generated by dissipation. With this
> >>> demonstration, other proposals which use dissipation for quantum
> >>> computing
> >>> and communication will hopefully attract the attention of
> >>> experimentalists."
>
> >>> See:
>
> >>> ______________
>
> >>> Entangled En Masse: Physicists Crank Out Billions of Entangled
> >>> Nucleus-Electron Pairs on Demand Setting ensembles of solid-state
> >>> particles into entangled pairs holds promise for quantum computation
>
> >>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entangle...
> >>> ______________
>
> >>> Entangled En Masse: Physicists Crank Out Billions of Entangled
> >>> Nucleus-Electron Pairs on Demand Setting ensembles of solid-state
> >>> particles into entangled pairs holds promise for quantum computation
>
>
> >>> "Entanglement, that most counterintuitive quantum phenomenon by which
> >>> particles share an unseen link that aligns their properties, is looking
> >>> more mundane all the time. Just last week two groups of researchers
> >>> reported entangling a photon with a crystal-based device, potentially
> >>> paving the way for solid-state memories that can store and then release
> >>> entangled particles as needed.
>
> >>> "Another week, another advance. In a paper published online January 19
> >>> in
> >>> Nature a team of physicists announced that they have developed the
> >>> capability to churn out pairs of entangled particles, billions at a
> >>> time.
> >>> (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The advance
> >>> might someday allow for the streamlined development of quantum
> >>> processors
> >>> with a large number of quantum bits working in parallel".
>
> >>> See:
> >>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solid-state-entangle...
> >>> "Entanglement, that most counterintuitive quantum phenomenon by which
> >>> particles share an unseen link that aligns their properties, is looking
> >>> more mundane all the time. Just last week two groups of researchers
> >>> reported entangling a photon with a crystal-based device, potentially
> >>> paving the way for solid-state memories that can store and then release
> >>> entangled particles as needed.
>
> >>> "Another week, another advance. In a paper published online January 19
> >>> in
> >>> Nature a team of physicists announced that they have developed the
> >>> capability to churn out pairs of entangled particles, billions at a
> >>> time.
> >>> (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The advance
> >>> might someday allow for the streamlined development of quantum
> >>> processors
> >>> with a large number of quantum bits working in parallel".
>
> >>> See:
>
> >>Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align itself
> >>to common force field vector.
>
> >>This is like saying that two men stand right up because of gravity
> >>entangles
> >>them.
>
> > ---
> > Nonsense.
>
> > It's more like saying that two entangled men on opposite sides of the
> > Earth can talk to each other at speeds faster than it takes light to
> > propagate the distance between them.
>
> > --
> > JF
>
> Which is not impossible if one man turns on an electromagnet strong enough
> to affect the Earth's magnetic field thus allowing the second man on the
> other side to detect changes in magnetic field gradient and interpreting it
> as information.
> Such signal transfer will be instantaneous and the common Earth magnetic
> force field will be the entangling element, so to speak to satisfy your
> theory.
False. Perturbations in an established EM field can not propagate
> >>Sci.fi again as all they show is that polarized particles can align itself
> >>to common force field vector.
>
> >>This is like saying that two men stand right up because of gravity
> >>entangles
> >>them.
>
> > ---
> > Nonsense.
>
> > It's more like saying that two entangled men on opposite sides of the
> > Earth can talk to each other at speeds faster than it takes light to
> > propagate the distance between them.
>
> > --
> > JF
>
> Which is not impossible if one man turns on an electromagnet strong enough
> to affect the Earth's magnetic field thus allowing the second man on the
> other side to detect changes in magnetic field gradient and interpreting it
> as information.
> Such signal transfer will be instantaneous and the common Earth magnetic
> force field will be the entangling element, so to speak to satisfy your
> theory.
faster than light. Light *is* a perturbation of an established EM
field.
Mark L. Fergerson
John G
Nov 25, 2011, 10:21:49 PM11/25/11
to
on 26/11/2011, Michael A. Terrell supposed :
I know the spelling is different but ...
Copyright © 2011 Tyrell Innovations. All Rights Reserved.
--
John G.
> admformeto wrote:
>>
>> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>
>
> I agree. A good laugh is worth waiting for, and you'll hear it from
> all sides.
Funny Thing. Have you noticed the Copyright owner of this mystery site?
>>
>> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>
>
> I agree. A good laugh is worth waiting for, and you'll hear it from
> all sides.
I know the spelling is different but ...
Copyright © 2011 Tyrell Innovations. All Rights Reserved.
--
John G.
Tom Del Rosso
Nov 25, 2011, 10:47:59 PM11/25/11
to
Jamie wrote:
> admformeto wrote:
>
> > Read and learn:
> > Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of
> > constant mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating
> > structure. Thus relative to source light propagates in constant
> > speed regardless of its wavelength.
> > To produce light which propagates with different speed one must
> > design charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
> > The same applies to EM waves.
> >
> > Mathew Orman
> >
> > speed regardless of its wavelength.
> > To produce light which propagates with different speed one must
> > design charge oscillator with unconventional structure.
> > The same applies to EM waves.
> >
> > Mathew Orman
> >
> > Public release record on November 23 2011.
> The key word is "Relative"
I think the key word is also "velocity."
Nobody ever said that the velocity of light is constant, because it depends
on direction. If you keep in mind that the OP doesn't know the difference
between speed and velocity, it puts his other statements in perspective.
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.
Michael A. Terrell
Nov 26, 2011, 12:02:35 AM11/26/11
to
someone who released an album of synthesized music back in the early
'70s. My work was mostly in broadcast & Telemetry where we obeyed the
speed of light laws. :)
John G
Nov 26, 2011, 12:10:47 AM11/26/11
to
Michael A. Terrell formulated the question :
I knew it was not you but it just struck me as funny seeing you have
had a bit to say in this thread.
--
John G.
had a bit to say in this thread.
--
John G.
PD
Nov 26, 2011, 2:01:35 PM11/26/11
to
On 11/25/2011 11:58 AM, PD wrote:
> On 11/25/2011 7:47 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
>>>
>>> Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
>>>
>>> Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
>>> see it for your self on my website."
>>>
>>> Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
>>> high index of refraction.
>>>
>>> --
>>> JF
>>
>> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>>
>> Mathew Orman
Notice that Mathew Orman has promised publication on YouTube and on his
> On 11/25/2011 7:47 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> First it's: "Public release record on November 23 2011."
>>>
>>> Then, on your website, it's to be today, sometime.
>>>
>>> Finally, from your last sentence, above, it's: "Wait till Monday and
>>> see it for your self on my website."
>>>
>>> Seems like you're working in a medium with a delay caused by a very
>>> high index of refraction.
>>>
>>> --
>>> JF
>>
>> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>>
>> Mathew Orman
website for some months now. There is nothing on YouTube posted by
Orman, and his advertised website says the release date of the site is
November 25, 2011. It still says that today, November 26, 2011.
A quick search for Mathew Orman reveals a rather lengthy history of
nondelivery of promised goods, including some excuses about Polish post
offices. I would guess, then, that Mathew's website has been held up in
the Polish post office.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Nov 28, 2011, 5:10:19 PM11/28/11
to
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:55 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> combine with deuterium nuclei. The speed of the resulting photon
>> is c and is quickly absorbed by a charged particle
>>
>> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/17f02.jpg
>>
>> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>>
>> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
>> 2. photons propagate at c
>> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>>
>> Photon momentum
>> p = h?/c = h/?
>>
>> Photon Energy
>> E = h?
>
>A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
>plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
>after traveling for zillions of years.
That doesn't prove anything about their relative emission times.
Also, there is evidence that all light traveling in a particular direction
experiences speed 'unification' as it travels.
>John
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>>> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>>
>> Notice the ? photons produced in the core of the sun when protons
>>On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
>>> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>>
>> combine with deuterium nuclei. The speed of the resulting photon
>> is c and is quickly absorbed by a charged particle
>>
>> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/17f02.jpg
>>
>> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>>
>> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
>> 2. photons propagate at c
>> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>>
>> Photon momentum
>> p = h?/c = h/?
>>
>> Photon Energy
>> E = h?
>
>A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
>plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
>after traveling for zillions of years.
That doesn't prove anything about their relative emission times.
Also, there is evidence that all light traveling in a particular direction
experiences speed 'unification' as it travels.
>John
Bill Sloman
Nov 29, 2011, 6:18:45 AM11/29/11
to
On Nov 28, 11:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:55 -0800, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:55 -0800, John Larkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
> >>> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> >>> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>
> >> Notice the ? photons produced in the core of the sun when protons
> >> combine with deuterium nuclei. The speed of the resulting photon
> >> is c and is quickly absorbed by a charged particle
>
> >> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/17f02.jpg
>
> >> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>
> >> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> >> 2. photons propagate at c
> >> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>
> >> Photon momentum
> >> p = h?/c = h/?
>
> >> Photon Energy
> >> E = h?
>
> >A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
> >plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
> >after traveling for zillions of years.
>
> That doesn't prove anything about their relative emission times.
Supernova explosions have a magnificent simplicity. The processes that
>
> >>On 11/23/11 5:41 AM, admformeto wrote:
> >>> Velocity of light relative to the source is constant because of constant
> >>> mass of electrons which are part of the source oscillating structure.
>
> >> Notice the ? photons produced in the core of the sun when protons
> >> combine with deuterium nuclei. The speed of the resulting photon
> >> is c and is quickly absorbed by a charged particle
>
> >> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/17f02.jpg
>
> >> From the quantum mechanical perspective, all photons travel at c.
>
> >> 1. photons are emitted (by charged particles)
> >> 2. photons propagate at c
> >> 3. photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
>
> >> Photon momentum
> >> p = h?/c = h/?
>
> >> Photon Energy
> >> E = h?
>
> >A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
> >plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
> >after traveling for zillions of years.
>
> That doesn't prove anything about their relative emission times.
create them are tolerably complicated, but the bottom line is that
most of the energy involved ends up as a burst of neutrinos which make
themselves scarce at more or less the speed of light. Your reaction
makes it clear that you haven't done your reading. You could start
here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
> Also, there is evidence that all light traveling in a particular direction
> experiences speed 'unification' as it travels.
interesting - if implausible - idea?
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
eric gisse
Nov 29, 2011, 11:40:27 AM11/29/11
to
Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote in
news:69d00423-d206-45f3...@j15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> Really? Have you got a reference to a paper that spells out this
> interesting - if implausible - idea?
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
Sure he does. It involves reaching into his ass to get it, though.
Ralph makes things up and is a compulsive liar.
news:69d00423-d206-45f3...@j15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> Really? Have you got a reference to a paper that spells out this
> interesting - if implausible - idea?
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
>
Ralph makes things up and is a compulsive liar.
John G
Nov 29, 2011, 3:51:39 PM11/29/11
to
admformeto expressed precisely :
Where is the Web Site that will tell us all? :-?
--
John G.
>
>
>
> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
November 25 seems to have passed at a speed geater than light and lol
>
>
> I assure you that your patience will be rewarded.
>
> Mathew Orman
>
> http://www.faster-than-light.us/
Where is the Web Site that will tell us all? :-?
--
John G.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Nov 29, 2011, 3:56:46 PM11/29/11
to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 03:18:45 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
wrote:
>On Nov 28, 11:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:55 -0800, John Larkin
>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
>Your reaction
>makes it clear that you haven't done your reading. You could start
>here
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
All astronomical theories are based on the false assumption that what we
observe here over a short time interval is a true replica of what happened
at the source during the same time interval.
They are all hopelessly wrong.
>> Also, there is evidence that all light traveling in a particular direction
>> experiences speed 'unification' as it travels.
>
>Really? Have you got a reference to a paper that spells out this
>interesting - if implausible - idea?
Suire.... http://www.scisite.info/The_New_Ballistic_Theory_of_Light.html
wrote:
>On Nov 28, 11:10 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:31:55 -0800, John Larkin
>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
>> >> Photon momentum
>> >> p = h?/c = h/?
>>
>> >> Photon Energy
>> >> E = h?
>>
>> >A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
>> >plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
>> >after traveling for zillions of years.
>>
>> That doesn't prove anything about their relative emission times.
>
>Supernova explosions have a magnificent simplicity. The processes that
>create them are tolerably complicated, but the bottom line is that
>most of the energy involved ends up as a burst of neutrinos which make
>themselves scarce at more or less the speed of light.
Your keyword there was 'more'.
>> >> p = h?/c = h/?
>>
>> >> Photon Energy
>> >> E = h?
>>
>> >A supernova explosion emits all sorts of photons, from IR to gammas,
>> >plus neutrinos, and they all arrive here in a very small time window,
>> >after traveling for zillions of years.
>>
>> That doesn't prove anything about their relative emission times.
>
>Supernova explosions have a magnificent simplicity. The processes that
>create them are tolerably complicated, but the bottom line is that
>most of the energy involved ends up as a burst of neutrinos which make
>themselves scarce at more or less the speed of light.
>Your reaction
>makes it clear that you haven't done your reading. You could start
>here
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
observe here over a short time interval is a true replica of what happened
at the source during the same time interval.
They are all hopelessly wrong.
>> Also, there is evidence that all light traveling in a particular direction
>> experiences speed 'unification' as it travels.
>
>Really? Have you got a reference to a paper that spells out this
>interesting - if implausible - idea?
Sam Wormley
Nov 29, 2011, 8:00:47 PM11/29/11
to
On 11/29/11 2:56 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> All astronomical theories are based on the false assumption that what we
> observe here over a short time interval is a true replica of what happened
> at the source during the same time interval.
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> All astronomical theories are based on the false assumption that what we
> observe here over a short time interval is a true replica of what happened
> at the source during the same time interval.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations,
each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:
The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been
fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the
universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the
Big Bang model predicts.
Henry Wilson DSc.
Nov 29, 2011, 8:14:43 PM11/29/11
to
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:00:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/29/11 2:56 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> All astronomical theories are based on the false assumption that what we
>> observe here over a short time interval is a true replica of what happened
>> at the source during the same time interval.
>
> Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
>
>The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations,
>each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:
The BB is supported by all American creationists.
>On 11/29/11 2:56 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> All astronomical theories are based on the false assumption that what we
>> observe here over a short time interval is a true replica of what happened
>> at the source during the same time interval.
>
> Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
>
>The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations,
>each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:
>The expansion of the universe
>Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding
>from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
>The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
>The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been
>fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
for the periodic table.
>The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
>The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave
>background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.
>These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the
>universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the
>Big Bang model predicts.
0 new messages