breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com

"Robert Baer" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net...

It is clear that you are more prompt to spout than to read carefully and think. I never claimed FTL propagation, but low phase shift on a _steady_ sine wave signal in a low Z driven and unterminated TL.

And before you spout again, you'd better think and/or try before.

For a 115R 100mm PCB line (660nH,50p,2.2R per meter), about 5ns/m and _fixed_ 100kHz frequency :

115R terminated : att = 0.02dB, phase = -18.5E-3 degree unterminated : att = unmeasurable, phase = unmeasurable

At 10MHz the same line gives :

115R terminated : att = 0.02dB, phase = -2 degree unterminated : att = 0.005dB, phase = -5E-3 degree

Now you can do the maths or setup a spice sim if you're lazy. In case your still too lazy I've done your homework and the results closely agree with the measurements. At 100kHz the same line gives :

115R terminated : att = 0.024dB, phase = -20.8E-3 degree unterminated : att = 17.5E-6dB, phase = 47.5E-6 degree (yes micro degree)

At 10MHz the same line gives :

115R terminated : att = 0.023dB, phase = -2.059 degree unterminated : att = 5.65E-3dB, phase = -4.71E-3 degree

For just parroting, without thinking, what you've read somewhere you've won a Burridge award.

--
Thanks,
Fred.

--
If we don't do it we'll die anyway, so what we'll have to figure out
between now and then is how to do it right the first time...

It is actually incorrect that we refer to photons as particles, as the definition of particle in qed is "A subatomic object with a definite mass and charge."

fast

get

That's easy, they just don't have kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is

1/2mv^2 which, coupled with mass inflation, is why you would need infinite energy to reach the speed of light. But it is not the only energy in the ballgame.

I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ wrote (in ) about 'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sat, 5 Feb 2005:

It's not possible to PROVE a negative of that nature. One could observe particle behaviour for a million years with no result and then just one might cross.

Since you understand special relativity, what do you think is the significance of the equations when v is greater than c? Do the negative and imaginary solutions not bother you?

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

--
No. a photon, by definition, can't travel faster than light. What
you're talking about is a  'tachyon', a hypothetical subatomic
particle that travels faster than the speed of light.

How does it violate conservation of energy? The energy is still in the system (the universe) just in another form.

I've heard this story that might make you feel better. Einstein was once told that he was probably one of three people in the world who understood his Theory of Special Relativity. His reply, "Really, who's the third?"

I think you're really 41 ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.

I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ wrote (in ) about 'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sat, 5 Feb 2005:

It's called 'del' or 'nabla', and it's a symbol in calculus. You said 'no calculus', so it's a bit difficult to help you any more. The first paragraph at the URL:

gives you the history, but then it goes deeply into vector calculus in three dimensions.

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

No, I am really 14. I'm serious. On my birth certificate, I was born December 4th 1990. I'm no genius either, I just have an enormously huge obsession with science.

I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ wrote (in ) about 'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sat, 5 Feb 2005:

I've just asked you roughly the same question in a previous e-mail! It's because of paradoxes such as you describe that we take Special Relativity to mean that FTL for objects made of matter isn't possible.

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

"> Light being pure energy "w/o" mass, it has to be the fastest.

either:

It's already warped.

Reverse time."

That's basically what I said earlier

I've made 4 science quizzes on allthetests.com: the SCIENCE quiz I, the SCIENCE quiz II, the SCIENCE quiz III, and the SCIENCE quiz IV. The first three have some issues that can be argued. The last one is the Extreme Physics one, and can be found at this url...

If anyone has time, I do need some critique, I doubt it's entirely correct, but I sure hope it's better than that other guy's. Remember that it's all IN THEORY, and maybe all the times it says "is" it should say "might be".

Also, what exactly would be the point in saying I'm 14 if I was 41? That wouldn't benefit me in any way.

A couple of months ago Mathew Orman posted messages about an expirement he did and he thought he had discovered a way to make an electrical signal travel through a cable faster than light. In reality he made a mistake while doing his measurements which he could have seen himself if he knew something (more) about transmission of signals in cables.

--
Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl

lol, I have looked at the slope on y = x^2 when we were using the graphing calculators in math and I finished my worksheet. I had nothing to do, so I decided to graph random things on the calculator. I haven't tried x^3. I don't understand trig yet, and I don't know what sine, cosine, and tangents are, but I do know what the graphs of the look like. (once again, from experimenting with a graphing calculator)

ok, so I've picked up that calculus is change in variables or something like that...

I have real player, but the lectures aren't working. Maybe it's because I'm on the windows 98. I'll try again later on the better computer.

Once again,