faster-than-light.us

"admformeto"

The situation is obvious, the facts - such as they are - are clear, and what's going on is that you want to continue arguing about a subject you know nothing about. Ad hominem is unavoidable in this situation, though - since you scarcely qualify as a hominid - it's probably a little presumptuous of you to claim that my comments are "ad hominem".

Your claim that my statement is "erroneous" is an ill-informed personal opinion, unsupported by any observed fact.Your own grasp of logic and English needs to be improved to the point where you can appreciate where this leaves your argument.

A claim for which there is absolutely no experimental evidence.

A sufficiently energetic neutrino can interact with - say - a proton via the weak force to generate a neutron-positron pair which can then give you a flash of light, but this isn't Cerenkov radiation.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

e:

e:

formeto"

s.com...

trical

on.

ry of

he

a tiny

the

ell

far

al

no

Why? I've never had to design anything that exploited the insights of general relativity, so I've never had a reason to find a graduate level course on the subject. I've not been involved in the design of global postioning system gear or high-performance atomic clocks or even a Mossbauer spectrometer.

I've never taken a course on general relativity, so my understanding is pretty basic, but discussion of Cerenkov radiation don't seem to find it necessary to invoke general relativity, and do seem to get by with Maxwell's equations.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"admformeto"

te:

ed "admformeto"

nce

It may not have been correct statement, but it's not yet a wrong statement, and may yet prove to have been correct. "Erroneous" implies that it contained a demonstrable error, and all you've managed to do - apart from exhibiting, once again, your capacity grabbing the wrong end of the stick and hanging on to it long after it's been shown to be thre wrong end of the stick - is to find a speculation that implies (if you take it seriously)that neutrinos might actually turn out to have a very small magnetic moment.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Hmm, I seem to recall an "FTL cable" article in one of the "popular" electronics magazines much earlier than 2003... maybe back in the '80s or '90s. I don't recall how it was finally explained, but I do know it didn't introduce any new physics! I think the very long cable was in a loop on the benchtop between a pulse generator and a scope or TDR. The trick was that the early "output" pulse was via induction due to the loop. Or something like that.

Best regards,

Bob Masta DAQARTA v6.02 Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis

For someone involved with data acquisition, you sure do have a near nil grasp of what happened, when, or any particulars.

It was AMPLIFICATION and it DOES work. It had nothing to do with FTL and there was not ever any such claim.

"admformeto"

te:

pened "admformeto"

on,

ns

chance

is

ce

Serendipitously correct would still be correct.

That's not what I said - nor would have. I've been well aware that neutrinos have mass ever since the solar paradox was resolved bck in

ent.

Neutrinos do seem to have some mass. At least one of them has to be heavier 0.04eV, and there's some evidence that suggests that all three weigh in close to 1.5eV.

The stick that you grasped was the one with the flag that said "All they'll show is that particles which travel faster in a medium than light can will emit Cerenkov radiation." You missed the point that this referred to charged particles, which neutrinos aren't.

You have been trying to get yourself off the hook ever since, by your usual techinique of throwing up a lot of irrelevant dust.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Damn, now you sound like a cop (or a judge). Banging the gavel even though the state was proven 100% wrong!

Bent perceptions much?

Ummm... pkb much?

"admformeto"

roups.com...

electrical

ermion.

covery of

s. The

of a tiny

ing the

as well

as far

trical

has no

olid

yet

tion.

dence

es

pply

you

ut

I was still an undergraduate when I woke up to the fact that magnetism can be seen as a consequence of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction on the forces between moving charges. I was quite impressed with myself at the time, but rapidly realised that this was obvious to those more skilled in the art. I'm a bit surprised that you claim that quantum theory is implicit in general relativity - Einstein doesn't seem to have thought so.

But, as you say, you don't need an intimate knowledge of fluid dynamics to do plumbing, and judging from the quality of the electronics that can get published in Rev. Sci. Instrum., devoting too much of your cognitive resources to general relativity impairs your capacity to develop or recognise optimal electronic circuits.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

And *you* are the master at such recognition?

Bwuahahahahahaha! Hilarious! Sure, Bub.

AlwaysWrong strikes out again.

Check out "A W Sloman" plus "Review of Scientific Instruments" on scholar.google.com

Review Scientific Instrument doesn't like publishing comments that point out that their referees are incompetent, but they've done it for me five times, so far.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This thread, in itself, has created several new moron particles ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson introduces a minimal perturbation ...

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

man

You really think so? I'll file that in my collection of your defective conclusions.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ote:

ned "admformeto"

d.

glegroups.com...

any electrical

a fermion.

discovery of

mass. The

ence of a tiny

llowing the

lly as well

so - as far

electrical

rino has no

ss solid

ture.

ny

t did

as yet

gination.

evidence

tual"

It

ance

ticles

't apply

ore you

tive.

of

about

by

From one of the the Amazon reviews "The interesting thing about this book is that in the development of Maxwell's Equations, which unify the Electric and Magnetic Field developments and yield the celebrated Wave Equation, Purcell stresses the idea that existence of the magnetic field is a necessary consequence that the influence of the electric field be made relativistically invariant. While he does not prove this, the concept is motivated."

I had my monent of insight in 1962, and Purcell's book was published in 1965.

Could you be a little vaguer? As a claim, that's only almost meaningless, and you usually manage to be totally opaque.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

appened "admformeto"

ected.

.googlegroups.com...

nor any electrical

fore a fermion.

The discovery of

have mass. The

xistence of a tiny

B, allowing the

tically as well

et, so - as far

no electrical

neutrino has no

r less solid

tructure.

s no

a tiny

at it did

an - as yet

imagination.

se to

the evidence

"factual"

act. It

e chance

particles

oesn't apply

before you

rimitive.

hts of

te

gn of

or

say about

nding

m to

get by

ism

on

re

c30_English_pp146-200...

Since equation 65 says absolutely nothing about quantisation, you do seem to have maintained your capacity to fail to communicate the insights that you claim to enjoy. In other words, you continue to post pretentious nonsense that doesn't mean what you say it means.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

te:

te:

it happened "admformeto"

detected.

oman

ge, nor any electrical

herefore a fermion.

rce. The discovery of

nos have mass. The

he existence of a tiny

agnetically as well

ng yet, so - as far

and no electrical

The neutrino has no

ather less solid

al structure.

o has no

ply a tiny

n that it did

=A0an - as yet

your imagination.

etense to

ntil the evidence

ous "factual"

wn fact. It

s the chance

that particles

ly doesn't apply

y.

long before you

l"

ly primitive.

nsights of

aduate

design of

ocks or

t to say about

rstanding

seem to

to get by

gnetism

ion on

yself

e more

d...

ed

m to

No. I'm with Martin Brown here. "Delusional nutter" seems to describe you tolerably accurately, though it doesn't really capture the fatuous conceit.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen