FTL light and EM waves are invisible

What does "lude" mean? I've never heard the term, except 'ludes, which is an abbreviation for Quaalude.

Oh, the ugly crooked teeth are mostly gone, except for my fangs. ;-)

Thanks! Rich

Relative double? And who's hiding?

I think you have me mixed up with one of your inbred relatives.

Jamie

Because *some* people use the mental exercise to keep them sharp, Rich. It is easy to tell which group you're from.

Cheers to you, too. John

Ah! I see that you're picking on the fact that I misspelled lewd. That's all you've got?

Your qualifications, much less your capacity to "tell" anything about anyone rests at nil, dipshit.

Einstein told us that computers are a good thing.

I'll exercise my mind utilizing the most advanced tools possible which are at my disposal.

You can keep counting sticks as you pick them up, and acting as if you are superior to others, you dopey, retarded bastard.

No delivery timetable for the first unit in your spec?

he doesn't have the mental capacity. He thinks Electret microphones are crystal microphones and tht is one of his more lucid comments.

No, he is Maynard Philbrook.

Mop, bucket, time card.

John

Is that your tool set, John?

I am surprised that you would admit to such a thing.

It is all you are qualified for, however.

No it isn't. Almost all the published claims of FTL signalling are by people who do not have the first clue about what it is they are measuring. The rest of them are frauds and charlatans.

You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the properties of a broadband signal along a dispersive transmission channel.

A single 1ns wide pulse also requires you have a transmission path that is non-dispersive and uniform from DC out to 1GHz to arrive unmolested.

If you wanted an encoding scheme that could transmit real data with a moderate bandwidth requirement Manchester encoding would do.

The big problem is you can send the message "do not send a reply back".

Or nutters and cranks making them.

Tachyons and the properties that they must have if they were to exist are considered breifly in some astrophysical texts like eg Harwit's, Astrophysical Concepts pp183-5 (and mentioned elsewhere). But there is no experimental evidence for them at all and attempts have been made.

Regards, Martin Brown

One of the few things that move faster than light are the vibrations from your thoughts.

God is laughing at us right now.

Not if he has other more important responsibilities. Most electronic engineers seem to think that all software is about 2 man months of work and for that scale of project you can just hack it into shape on a wing and a prayer. The more talented software engineers at university learn this bad habit doing their course work too. The problem arises that this approach does not scale well to large scale software development.

It always depends on the size of the project. But you can gain some confidence in the final delivery date if it can be broken down into independent testable chunks of roughly 2+/-1 man months. Not everything can though which is where it gets sticky and artificial chunks with interfaces inserted to tick some box are always a complete disaster.

And the corollary is that for software projects at 12 man months or longer with no intermediate check points or verification will almost never be delivered on time, budget or spec. Most times in software project management you are doing well to get two out of three.

Managing software engineering teams is sometimes like herding cats.

No. But once 9 months has elapsed you can have one baby every month for nine months (pipelining) or nine babies (parallelism).

Regards, Martin Brown

"interfaces inserted"? Never had a manager want to insert an interface (which would require another task for designing it, and resourcing). No, they just wanted to split things.

And don't get me started on permature convergence, which begins a few weeks before the (totally unrealistic) due delivery date, regardless of the state of the development, thus ensuring that actual delivery is even later than it would otherwise have been.

Sylvia.

You need to be more specific as you are getting out of scope of discussion quoting huge theories.

Mathew Orman

Summary: When positing phenomena that bring fundamental ideas like causality into question, you need more than blibs on an oscilloscope as proof.

Sylvia.

What would causality have to do with information transfer in free space?

Mathew Orman

If it is transferred FTL, then in some reference frames it arrives before it was sent, so it becomes a way of sending information back in time. It then becomes simple to construct scenarios such that certain events only occur if they don't occur, and vice versa, which is something of a strange state for events to be in.

If you can demonstrate real FTL communication, then the theorists will have to figure out how the universe copes, but absent compelling evidence for the existence of FTL communication, most people will take the causality implications as evidence that FTL communication is not possible. Blips on an oscilloscope won't cut it.

Sylvia.

"If it is transferred FTL, then in some reference frames it arrives before it was sent"

Could you give an examples of such frame.

Mathew Orman

In your rest frame (t, x) suppose you transmit your pulse from x = 0, at t = 0, and by travelling at four times the speed of light, it reaches receiver at x = 4c at t = 1.

The other frame (t', x'), which shares the same origin (t' = x' = 0 when t = x = 0) is travelling at v = c/2 in in the same direction as the pulse. When the pulse reaches the receiver, we apply the Lorentz transformation to get

t' = L(t - vx / c^2) = L(1 - c/2 * 4c / c^2) = L(1 - 2) = L(-1)

where L is the Lorentz factor, which works out at 1/sqrt(3/4) in this case.

Thus in this other frame, t' when the pulse arrives at the receiver is negative. That is, in this frame, the pulse arrives at the receiver before it leaves the transmitter.

That's one example. You asked for examples, plural - just use different values for v.

Sylvia.