breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com

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

John

Reply to
John Larkin
Loading thread data ...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Robert Baer wrote (in ) about 'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sun, 6 Feb 2005:

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

We don't know, and may never know, whether expansion at superluminal speeds is possible, because there is an event horizon where the expansion speed is C. We can get no information, as far as we know at present, from beyond that horizon, which is formally called 'the boundary of the observable universe'.

Yes, it does, because it presumes matter moving at superluminal speed.

GR isn't required for that. See above about the event horizon.

The conclusion is true.

--
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
Reply to
John Woodgate

Have you been following the Mars rover expeditions? NASA set two landers down on the face of a planet 6+ billion miles away, within 100 yards of the target points! That's very impressive. I hear they're now going to slam an 800-pound copper chunk into a comet at a speed delta of 22,000 miles/hr. The megaton-equivalent energy release is said to create "a large crater about the size of the Rose Bowl Stadium (in Pasadena, California)," says Donald Yeomans of JPL. This mission is to see what is under the comet's surface by vaporizing some of it. Read more at:

formatting link

Reply to
Mark Jones

It's easy to make something look like it is travelling faster than C, if both are delayed equally, then one is delayed a little less.

Reply to
Mark Jones

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

--
  Keith
Reply to
keith

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

--
  Keith
Reply to
keith

In article , Robert Baer wrote: [...]

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

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

In article , keith wrote: [...]

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

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

In article , John Woodgate wrote: [...]

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

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

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

In article , Jim Thompson wrote: [...]

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

4 out of 10 will think that calculus is a tooth problem. 2 out of 10 will think that Calculus was some Roman guy. 1 out of 10 will think that Calculus is a new software program. 1 out of 10 will know, sort of, what Calculus is. 0.6 out of 10 will be able to use some Calculus. 0.3 out of 10 will have a real understanding of what they are doing.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ wrote (in ) about 'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sun, 6 Feb 2005:

Greek, not Latin, but correct.

--
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
Reply to
John Woodgate

I read in sci.electronics.design that ~~SciGirl~~ wrote (in ) about 'breaking the speed of light article on howstuffworks.com', on Sun, 6 Feb 2005:

In base 37? (;-)

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

how

and

get

gets

of

to

massless.

kenetic

Kinetic is not the only type of energy. Conservation of Energy just says you can't create it or destroy it, but you can change it.

Reply to
Geodanah

Hmm. Now the qusetion is; Are you being polite now?

Who cares, the Pats won! ...again.

--
  Keith
Reply to
keith

Again you've responded without including the correct context for the rest of us. The way the treading runs, it looks like you are resonding to me, but I don;t see how you could be as my posting did not actually question your age.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

So, use a mirror to reflect the light back to it's source, then put the transmitter and receiver side by side.

Reply to
Jeff

But, the delay is always positive...

Reply to
Robert Baer

Crudely stated, the three laws of thermodynamics are:

1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You always lose.
Reply to
Robert Baer

3) You cannot get out of the game.
--
  Keith
Reply to
Keith Williams
[...]

I've mever seen a case where it isn't in fact. I have seen cases where the misuse of measuring equipment can make what looks like negitive delays.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge
Reply to
Ken Smith

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.