The works have began on the World's first Superluminal Radio Transmitter......
Mathew Orman
Mathew Orman
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>.........here at Tyrell Innovations Deutschland!
>
>Mathew Orman
>
>www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>
>
When will work begin on an independent review of your equipment?
Mathew Orman
"Eric Gisse" <kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote in message
news:i5348vs1pa40eejji...@4ax.com...
It's been reviewed as we speak!
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
Uncle Al
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Mathew Orman
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E822570...@hate.spam.net...
Is your name Schwartz; Alan M. (49 Fabriano, Irvine, CA 92720-2525) ?
Mathew Orman
Spaceman
"Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b5t94q$fs3$1...@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3E822570...@hate.spam.net...
>
> Is your name Schwartz; Alan M. (49 Fabriano, Irvine, CA 92720-2525) ?
Yes,
that is the asshole that uses the Uncle Al name here.
So smart,
he does not even know how clocks work.
:)
Jim
Jim
Spaceman
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:99c48vg3v5jnqeqh2...@4ax.com...
> No they haven't.
How do you know?
Do you have a "god" scope watching Earth?
Mathew Orman
Yes,
it is hard to believe!
But based on my experience of near field phenomena
I've begun constructing the test setup.
I will be updating this NG on any new advancements.
Mathew Orman
ps. It is so exciting, you should try it!
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"Eric Gisse" <kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote in message
>news:i5348vs1pa40eejji...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:01:26 +0100, "Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >.........here at Tyrell Innovations Deutschland!
>> >
>> >Mathew Orman
>> >
>> >www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>> When will work begin on an independent review of your equipment?
>
>It's been reviewed as we speak!
>
>Mathew Orman
>
>www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
By who? What are their credentals?
Mathew Orman
Mathew Orman
Dan Bloomquist
Mathew Orman wrote:
>
> It will be published at: www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>
> Mathew Orman
>
>
Just like that data you promised over a week ago? Liar.
You aren't even a good troll, spacey's got you beat all to hell.
Best, Dan.
--
if( this == NULL )
return that;
Mathew Orman
"Dan Bloomquist" <lak...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E8244E2...@citlink.net...
All the data is at the website!
Each type of FTL data transmission lines has it's own
data table with specs as tested!
Mathew Orman
Jim
The logic god told me. :)
Hey James, have you done that ladder sliding down the wall experiment?
That question got my curiosity. I read lots of opinions, but wanted to
read the results of your test..
See ya. :)
Jim
Dan Bloomquist
Mathew Orman wrote:
> All the data is at the website!
> Each type of FTL data transmission lines has it's own
> data table with specs as tested!
>
No. No picture of your test results with transitional data. You claim to
have a scope quite capable of producing a picture. It is just that
simple. I don't want to hear your claims; I want to see the test results.
Best, Dan.
Spaceman
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message news:5ij48v0nts3nuv54s...@4ax.com...
> Hey James, have you done that ladder sliding down the wall experiment?
> That question got my curiosity. I read lots of opinions, but wanted to
> read the results of your test..
>
> See ya. :)
You never did it,
did you?
Mathew Orman
No problem!
Tomorrow I will connect my scope to my computer and capture the
data using HP's Scopelink software!
I will add it to the tables!
Mathew Orman
Gregory L. Hansen
Also add calibration data that shows your scope would be sensitive to a
speed of light delay if it existed.
--
"Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy
the pig."
Spaceman
"Dharma Fog" <Dhar...@VirtualMachines.COM> wrote in message news:3E82574D...@VirtualMachines.COM...
>
> The Crackpot Index
>
> John Baez
John Baez is the crackpot,
and he made up this list so crackpots like Dharma Fog could not tell
he was one.
Mathew Orman
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:b5tkjv$ha8$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
The HP54602A is a digital oscilloscope and it does not require any
calibration.
You can short Channels 1 and 2 and see that there is no phase shift bigger
than 50ps.
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
Gregory L. Hansen
There's nothing wrong with the HP54602A, I think your experimental
procedure is crap. Introduce a known nanosecond time delay and see if
your procedure can detect it.
Jim
No, I thought you had volunteered to try it in your shop.
I remember you trying to decide on the best friction
reduction for the base of the ladder. Wheels -vs- lubricant, I think.
OK, never mind. Just thought I'd ask. Still curious.
Jim
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>
>"Eric Gisse" <kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote in message
>news:6fg48vg1jvt582ksm...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:53:15 +0100, "Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Eric Gisse" <kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:i5348vs1pa40eejji...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 20:01:26 +0100, "Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >.........here at Tyrell Innovations Deutschland!
>> >> >
>> >> >Mathew Orman
>> >> >
>> >> >www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> When will work begin on an independent review of your equipment?
>> >
>> >It's been reviewed as we speak!
>> >
>> >Mathew Orman
>> >
>> >www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>>
>> By who? What are their credentals?
>>
>>
>It will be published at: www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
>
>Mathew Orman
So, instead of just telling me what I want to know, you waffle some
more and point me to your web site?
Yea. The customer if your number one priority...
Mathew Orman
We've done that several hundred posts ago!
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
Don Kelly
news:3E82574D...@VirtualMachines.COM...
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> The Crackpot Index
>
> John Baez
>
> A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to
> physics:
>
> 1. A -5 point starting credit.
>
> 2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>
> 3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
>
> 4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
>
> 5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
> correction.
>
> 6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of
> a widely accepted real experiment.
>
> 7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
> defective keyboards).
>
> 8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
>
> 9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
> misguided (without good evidence).
>
> 10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
> were evidence of sanity.
>
> 11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how
> long you have been working on it.
>
> 12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know
personally
> and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your
> ideas will be stolen.
>
> 13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds
> any flaws in your theory.
>
> 14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly
> defining it.
>
> 15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at
math,
> but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to
> express it in terms of equations".
>
> 16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only
a
> theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
>
> 17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory
> predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or
> fails to provide a "mechanism".
>
> 18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or
> claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
> (without good evidence).
>
> 19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a
> "paradigm shift".
>
> 20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index,
> e.g. saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I
> misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.
>
> 21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
>
> 22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or
claim
> that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good
> evidence).
>
> 23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
> were fact.
>
> 24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
> ridicule accorded to your past theories.
>
> 25. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
>
> 26. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the
> orthodoxy".
>
> 27. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in
a
> theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a
> closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between
> the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
>
> 28. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was
groping
> his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
>
> 29. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
> extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
>
> 30. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time
in
> an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you
out
> of your theory.
>
> 31. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis,
> stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
>
> 32. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged
> in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved
> fame, or suchlike.
>
> 33. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a
> modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
>
> 34. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
> present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more
> points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who
mocked
> your theories will be forced to recant.)
>
> 35. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no
> concrete testable predictions.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ba...@math.ucr.edu
> © 1998 John Baez
>
> home
----------
How many points for devices that somehow use Zero point energy?
How many for permanent magnet devices that somehow produce more energy than
what is put in?
How many for claiming that present ideas are all wrong but being unable to
present any reasoned argument or experimental data to support this premise?
How many for "the less one knows, the more valid the opinion"?
How many for substituting invective for rational argument?
How many for conclusions that contradict repeated experimental evidence ?
--
Don Kelly
dh...@peeshaw.ca
remove the urine to answer
Mathew Orman
"Don Kelly" <dh...@peeshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:4VSga.577444$Yo4.40...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
None of these apply to my technology!
Useful and practical application of FTL data transmission lines are the
undisputable evidence of Einstein's fallacy,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
bobk...@attbi.com
> None of these apply to my technology!
> Useful and practical application of FTL data transmission lines are the
> undisputable evidence of Einstein's fallacy,
What fallacy? You are full of horse pucky. You cannot send a signal FTL.
Cite an independet reproduction of your "results".
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:5e9d6280.03032...@posting.google.com...
> What fallacy?
The falacy you worship and never question, because
you are a worshipping parrot.