Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break "speed" of "light"(?)

Expand Messages
  • Kyle R. Mcallister
    ... Can you tell us what this conference was? Where it was held? ... Never heard of Rodrigues, but if that Obolensky is Alexis Guy Obolensky, I don t think he
    Message 1 of 19 , Jun 11, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > I have just attended a conference at which there were two experts on this
      > subject, and it is all a matter of how the light pulse is deformed and
      > detected. The front of the wave does not exceed speed c.

      Can you tell us what this conference was? Where it was held?

      > In case you are interested, the experts were Rodrigues (a brilliant
      > mathematical physicist) and Obolensky, who has done many practical
      > demonstrations of such effects, though not maybe as dramatic as the one
      > reported.

      Never heard of Rodrigues, but if that Obolensky is Alexis Guy Obolensky, I
      don't think he is considered to be an expert by very many
      people...especially establishment physicists.

      --Kyle R. Mcallister
    • Adrian
      Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break speed of light (?) ... Dear Kyle, It is almost getting to a stage where one has to sub or
      Message 2 of 19 , Jun 11, 2000
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break "speed" of
        "light"(?)

        > Never heard of Rodrigues, but if that Obolensky is Alexis Guy Obolensky, I
        > don't think he is considered to be an expert by very many
        > people...especially establishment physicists.

        Dear Kyle,

        It is almost getting to a stage where one has to sub or superscript that
        word "expert" with establishment versus non-e "expert". My humbler bottom
        line is can the man think and sad to say one finds either competency in
        varying degrees on both sides of the party line. To consider your comments,
        f i, one would also have to know these days quite where in the pecking
        orders on the footie field you stand. Me? just a much frowned upon maverick
        who refuses to stay with party lines altogether.

        IMHO if a signal, whatever the means, is incontrovertibly co-present or
        passed between two locations at FTL speeds, take your pick of metaphors,
        that means something. Whether it is theoretically possible or impossible
        does not mean that much. Since by now quite a few folk are reporting such
        oddity, etccc blahh. On the ground of global self consistency for the whole
        of the universe or cosmos there will have to be such a thing. And about 14
        odd billion years of self maintaining its continuity and self stability one
        might say is pretty good reason to accept global consistency. And as, for
        various other reasons, we cannot have both local and global consistency I'm
        looking forward to a few more and other such paradoxes to pop out of the
        woodwork. And if establishment science wants to keep paradoxes out of sight
        it has a problem.

        Adrian
      • Kyle R. Mcallister
        ... I would have to agree with the above. ... maverick ... If you mean, where do I stand, either for or against the establishment or the fringe, that s a
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 11, 2000
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > My humbler bottom
          > line is can the man think and sad to say one finds either competency in
          > varying degrees on both sides of the party line.

          I would have to agree with the above.

          > To consider your comments,
          > f i, one would also have to know these days quite where in the pecking
          > orders on the footie field you stand. Me? just a much frowned upon
          maverick
          > who refuses to stay with party lines altogether.

          If you mean, where do I stand, either for or against the establishment or
          the fringe, that's a question I often ask myself. I find the degree of
          openness in the establishment to be sadly lacking. Declaring something to
          be outright impossible or compulsory just because of a particular
          mathematical framework is dangerous. To then become philosophical about it,
          and say to someone who asks hard questions, that they cannot ask such
          questions, is psychological conditioning. This conditioning does not just
          happen on the side of the establishment. The fringe, on the other hand,
          seems to sadly consist of a large part of people who may be sincere, but
          who have not taken the time to learn what is or is not true, and by that I
          mean, what has been demonstrated by a well-conceived, well-executed
          experiment? Many of the fringe scientists do not bother to include things
          that are accepted at all. Fringe theoreticians are even worse. Me, I'm
          neither establishment or fringe. I think categorization is a pretty bad
          thing...probably due to my experiences as a youth. I am an experimentalist,
          as John Schnurer would say, a "hardball, nuts and bolts, belt and
          suspenders" type person. I don't think the universe operates by Occam's
          Razor, and I don't think it is mathematically 'beautiful.' I think it is
          more complex than can be imagined. I personally like it that way. I suppose
          you could say I like elements of the fringe and the establishment, and I
          hate parts of them as well. As far as faster than light is concerned, I
          can't say either way. There is much going on that deserves more research,
          and if the day comes that a true result is dismissed as something else on
          purely mathematical or theoretical grounds, I would mark it as the day
          science died. I don't think that has happened yet, and I desperately pray
          it does not. On a more personal note, I think given high enough technology,
          trips to Alpha Centauri will take less than 4.35 years, Earth time.

          Apologies for the length.

          --Kyle R. Mcallister
        • Adrian
          Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break speed of light (?) Amen to that lot. I find the fringe theoreticians worse because they fail to
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 11, 2000
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break "speed" of
            "light"(?)


            Amen to that lot. I find the fringe theoreticians worse because they fail to
            take time out to learn how to think properly. Personally whichever way the
            cookie crumbles I'll manage and yes lots more research is needed. Of course
            the FTL proponents cook the books if to get published it has to be pickled
            in photons. By the time one untangles oneself from the idiocies on either
            side it do get tedious, it do. I too like my fridge reliable and my peanuts
            tasting crunchy. Cannot stand Bishops meddling in science at all, oops,
            stupid scientists adopting bishops. If indeed it was simple we'd have it
            sassed out millenia ago.

            Adrian.


            > > My humbler bottom
            > > line is can the man think and sad to say one finds either competency in
            > > varying degrees on both sides of the party line.
            >
            > I would have to agree with the above.
            >
            > > To consider your comments,
            > > f i, one would also have to know these days quite where in the pecking
            > > orders on the footie field you stand. Me? just a much frowned upon
            > maverick
            > > who refuses to stay with party lines altogether.
            >
            > If you mean, where do I stand, either for or against the establishment or
            > the fringe, that's a question I often ask myself. I find the degree of
            > openness in the establishment to be sadly lacking. Declaring something to
            > be outright impossible or compulsory just because of a particular
            > mathematical framework is dangerous. To then become philosophical about
            it,
            > and say to someone who asks hard questions, that they cannot ask such
            > questions, is psychological conditioning. This conditioning does not just
            > happen on the side of the establishment. The fringe, on the other hand,
            > seems to sadly consist of a large part of people who may be sincere, but
            > who have not taken the time to learn what is or is not true, and by that I
            > mean, what has been demonstrated by a well-conceived, well-executed
            > experiment? Many of the fringe scientists do not bother to include things
            > that are accepted at all. Fringe theoreticians are even worse. Me, I'm
            > neither establishment or fringe. I think categorization is a pretty bad
            > thing...probably due to my experiences as a youth. I am an
            experimentalist,
            > as John Schnurer would say, a "hardball, nuts and bolts, belt and
            > suspenders" type person. I don't think the universe operates by Occam's
            > Razor, and I don't think it is mathematically 'beautiful.' I think it is
            > more complex than can be imagined. I personally like it that way. I
            suppose
            > you could say I like elements of the fringe and the establishment, and I
            > hate parts of them as well. As far as faster than light is concerned, I
            > can't say either way. There is much going on that deserves more research,
            > and if the day comes that a true result is dismissed as something else on
            > purely mathematical or theoretical grounds, I would mark it as the day
            > science died. I don't think that has happened yet, and I desperately pray
            > it does not. On a more personal note, I think given high enough
            technology,
            > trips to Alpha Centauri will take less than 4.35 years, Earth time.
            >
            > Apologies for the length.
            >
            > --Kyle R. Mcallister
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > LOW RATE, NO WAIT!
            > Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates
            > as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
            > http://click.egroups.com/1/5204/5/_/187292/_/960781954/
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
            >
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
            >
            >
          • gjones33@aol.com
            In a message dated 12/06/00 01:27:59 GMT Daylight Time, ... I think that highly recommends him. Cheers Gareth
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 11, 2000
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 12/06/00 01:27:59 GMT Daylight Time,
              stk@... writes:

              >
              > Never heard of Rodrigues, but if that Obolensky is Alexis Guy Obolensky, I
              > don't think he is considered to be an expert by very many
              > people...especially establishment physicists.
              >
              > --Kyle R. Mcallister
              >
              I think that highly recommends him.
              Cheers
              Gareth
            • c.h.thompson
              Dear Kyle ... this ... NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance, http://members.home.net/saiph/npahome.html), Storrs, Connecticut, June 5-9, 2000. So far they do not
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Kyle

                > > I have just attended a conference at which there were two experts on
                this
                > > subject, and it is all a matter of how the light pulse is deformed and
                > > detected. The front of the wave does not exceed speed c.
                >
                > Can you tell us what this conference was? Where it was held?

                NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance,
                http://members.home.net/saiph/npahome.html), Storrs, Connecticut, June 5-9,
                2000. So far they do not have an impressive record of achievment, but they
                are now very knowledgeable about the way in which the establishment is
                distorting and causing stagnation in fundamental physics.

                > > In case you are interested, the experts were Rodrigues (a brilliant
                > > mathematical physicist) and Obolensky, who has done many practical
                > > demonstrations of such effects, though not maybe as dramatic as the one
                > > reported.
                >
                > Never heard of Rodrigues,

                Maybe not, but I glanced at a book he has just published on quantum
                nonlocality and the *maths* in it is most impressive. Now that he knows
                that the experimental evidence for nonlocality is non-existent he might put
                rather a different story in the next edition! He knows French and is
                prepared to study some parts of Aspect's thesis that I think depend on an
                illogical assumption - not illogical in the physical sense of "acausal" but
                just in the ordinary sense of being nonsense within the laws of statistics
                and algebra. Quantum theory is a relatively new interest for him - he seems
                to be expert in many areas of mathematical physics.

                > but if that Obolensky is Alexis Guy Obolensky, I
                > don't think he is considered to be an expert by very many
                > people...especially establishment physicists.

                Yes, so he said! His career in the establishment was severely damaged when
                someone published without consulting him a "joint" paper that included false
                information.

                Caroline
                http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
              • Kyle R. Mcallister
                ... when ... false ... Really? Did he say who or what it was, specifically, that did this to his reputation? --Kyle R. Mcallister
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Yes, so he said! His career in the establishment was severely damaged
                  when
                  > someone published without consulting him a "joint" paper that included
                  false
                  > information.

                  Really? Did he say who or what it was, specifically, that did this to his
                  reputation?

                  --Kyle R. Mcallister
                • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
                  ... with ... Agreed. Claude
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >Adrian wrote:
                    >
                    >> That still means we do have the APPEARANCE of FTL, as misinterpreted in
                    >> contextual terms of photons and particles, which still leaves me with the
                    >> puzzle that us living in a WORLD of Appearances, quite what we can do
                    with
                    >> waves here, waves there, waves everywhere. AND if we have particles as
                    >> wrong, so too for waves, as BOTH space and time are categories of the mind.
                    >> So what does REALLY go on? So when will we "break" the bind of illusions?
                    >> Measuring speed requires us taking up TWO positions in space. Of course,
                    >> unless you wish to give up on consistency too. This lot, however misnamed
                    >> gives us a lead into how the whole keeps itself whole. Of course that does
                    >> not explain, at all, how come it would want to keep itself whole.
                    >>
                    >> Adrian.
                    >> ========

                    Agreed.

                    Claude
                  • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
                    Dear Caroline, ... ENTIRELY AGREED,Caroline. The herds of pink elephants have contaminated western Science and transformed it into **NUMEROLOGY**. I knew it
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Caroline,

                      >[Adrian]
                      >> > My humbler bottom
                      >> > line is can the man think and sad to say one finds either competency in
                      >> > varying degrees on both sides of the party line.
                      >
                      >You are right to have doubts, Adrian. As far as I can tell Rodrigues is an
                      >impeccable mathematician, but you may have already guessed that I was a
                      >little shaken that he should have put so much effort into mastering the
                      >maths of the EPR experiments without first checking out the reality of the
                      >situation.

                      ENTIRELY AGREED,Caroline.

                      The herds of pink elephants have contaminated western Science and
                      transformed it into **NUMEROLOGY**.

                      I knew it all the way when I started biology and that our prof. would
                      insist that maths were "needed" to enter in the scientific sect...

                      Thanks that I met Ross Tessien!

                      How to demathematise Science,now,and put it back on correct tracks?
                      "Scientists" have become catholic priests...and we are the "new
                      Protestants" in a way!

                      Best,

                      Claude
                    • milo wolff by way of cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                      • Robert Neil Boyd
                        I don t believe what you are saying. Rodriguez has written several papers on FTL. I still can t understand why this opposition to FTL. The facts speak for
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I don't believe what you are saying. Rodriguez has written several papers
                          on FTL. I still can't understand why this opposition to FTL. The facts speak
                          for themselves on this. FTL is a fact. Live it or live with it.

                          Adrian wrote:

                          > That still means we do have the APPEARANCE of FTL, as misinterpreted in
                          > contextual terms of photons and particles, which still leaves me with the
                          > puzzle that us living in a WORLD of Appearances, quite what we can do with
                          > waves here, waves there, waves everywhere. AND if we have particles as
                          > wrong, so too for waves, as BOTH space and time are categories of the mind.
                          > So what does REALLY go on? So when will we "break" the bind of illusions?
                          > Measuring speed requires us taking up TWO positions in space. Of course,
                          > unless you wish to give up on consistency too. This lot, however misnamed
                          > gives us a lead into how the whole keeps itself whole. Of course that does
                          > not explain, at all, how come it would want to keep itself whole.
                          >
                          > Adrian.
                          > ========
                          > Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break "speed" of
                          > "light"(?)
                          >
                          > > Dear All
                          > >
                          > > I have just attended a conference at which there were two experts on this
                          > > subject, and it is all a matter of how the light pulse is deformed and
                          > > detected. The front of the wave does not exceed speed c.
                          > >
                          > > In case you are interested, the experts were Rodrigues (a brilliant
                          > > mathematical physicist)
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > Click for more information on how eGroups members save with beMANY!
                          > http://click.egroups.com/1/5074/5/_/187292/_/960764682/
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          >
                          > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
                          >
                          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
                        • c.h.thompson
                          ... Yes, he did, and I m about to write to him anyway to ask his opinion of my latest idea for that FTL experiment, so I might as well ask more of his scandal
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Re Alexis Guy Obolensky:

                            > > Yes, so he said! His career in the establishment was severely damaged
                            > when
                            > > someone published without consulting him a "joint" paper that included
                            > false
                            > > information.
                            >
                            > Really? Did he say who or what it was, specifically, that did this to his
                            > reputation?

                            Yes, he did, and I'm about to write to him anyway to ask his opinion of my
                            latest idea for that FTL experiment, so I might as well ask more of his
                            scandal story. I did not recognise the name.

                            My latest hunch has little to do with the speed of light! It is much more a
                            matter of getting away from the photon idea and thinking about what that
                            caesium is there for and how the detectors work, and the fact that the
                            faster pulse started off much more intense than the other one. Was that
                            last bit of information made public? I got it from Rodrigues. I think he
                            said 82% of the beam went by the route with the caesium in it.

                            Do you know how they checked the path lengths for equality?

                            Cheers
                            Caroline
                            http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
                          • c.h.thompson
                            Dear Kyle and Adrian [Adrian] ... You are right to have doubts, Adrian. As far as I can tell Rodrigues is an impeccable mathematician, but you may have
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Kyle and Adrian

                              [Adrian]
                              > > My humbler bottom
                              > > line is can the man think and sad to say one finds either competency in
                              > > varying degrees on both sides of the party line.

                              You are right to have doubts, Adrian. As far as I can tell Rodrigues is an
                              impeccable mathematician, but you may have already guessed that I was a
                              little shaken that he should have put so much effort into mastering the
                              maths of the EPR experiments without first checking out the reality of the
                              situation. But, as he told me, he is interested in maths and logic for
                              their own sakes, as I myself used to be before I discovered the beauty and
                              complexity of the real world.

                              [Kyle?]
                              > > Me? just a much frowned upon maverick
                              > > who refuses to stay with party lines altogether.

                              If you want to be smiled upon, join the NPA! But I fancy you may not really
                              care, and I have to admit that I do not share their time-consuming
                              preoccupation with relativity. About 50% of the people at the conference
                              were interested in other things, such as properties of the aether, cold
                              fusion (Hal Fox was there, BTW), some weird "rail gun" experiments in which
                              the "bullet" went backwards. Francisco Mueller showed us a video, so I know
                              this is true! Make the bullet of brass and it goes forwards, but change it
                              to (magnetisable) steel and, if you are lucky, it goes back a little before
                              burning into the rail.

                              > As far as faster than light is concerned, I
                              > can't say either way. There is much going on that deserves more research,
                              > and if the day comes that a true result is dismissed as something else on
                              > purely mathematical or theoretical grounds, I would mark it as the day
                              > science died.

                              I suspect that in this field and many others science is in a coma. I'm sure
                              that true results HAVE been dismissed, as anything that can't be "explained"
                              mathematically can't get published! This may be an exaggeration but it's
                              not far off.

                              > I don't think that has happened yet, and I desperately pray
                              > it does not. On a more personal note, I think given high enough
                              technology,
                              > trips to Alpha Centauri will take less than 4.35 years, Earth time.

                              Hmmm ... Well, of course, a lot of the things we see out there might turn
                              out to be closer than we think. The quasars especially. Halton Arp, the
                              dissident expert on these, was at the NPA meeting. Various alternative
                              ideas both for the basic cosmological red shift and for the special,
                              partly-quantised, red shifts of groups of quasars, were put forward.

                              > Apologies for the length.

                              I enjoyed it! Thanks.

                              Caroline
                            • Adrian
                              Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break speed of light (?) ... in ... an ... lines altogether. == Nope that was Adrian, who is nowise
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jun 12, 2000
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Scientists break "speed" of
                                "light"(?)


                                > Dear Kyle and Adrian
                                >
                                > [Adrian]
                                > > > My humbler bottom
                                > > > line is can the man think and sad to say one finds either competency
                                in
                                > > > varying degrees on both sides of the party line.
                                >
                                > You are right to have doubts, Adrian. As far as I can tell Rodrigues is
                                an
                                > impeccable mathematician, but you may have already guessed that I was a
                                > little shaken that he should have put so much effort into mastering the
                                > maths of the EPR experiments without first checking out the reality of the
                                > situation. But, as he told me, he is interested in maths and logic for
                                > their own sakes, as I myself used to be before I discovered the beauty and
                                > complexity of the real world.
                                >
                                > [Kyle?]
                                > > > Me? just a much frowned upon maverick who refuses to stay with party
                                lines altogether.

                                == Nope that was Adrian, who is nowise into any kind of bandwaggon the
                                beauties of the real world being far more fascinating. One of my major
                                hiccups with math as with Artificial Intelligence is that it cannot DO a
                                realtime dynamic cross check of a realtime data crunching process, often
                                miscalled "thinking" as if it is linear and conceptual and which real, live
                                minds do all the time and any logical tracing of that process always partly
                                misses the boat. Mechanically speaking it gets us into an infinite re- or
                                pro-gression which obviously cannot happen with the mind. There's slightly
                                more to it than Godel's proof intimates.

                                > If you want to be smiled upon, join the NPA! But I fancy you may not
                                really
                                > care, and I have to admit that I do not share their time-consuming
                                > preoccupation with relativity.

                                === Not one mind snarling damn "bit" and my fancy is that relativity is a
                                mind problem not exactly a physical one. It is rather tricky to crawl out of
                                the Heisenberg indeterminacy prinzip, which is more about re-representation
                                than presentation.

                                About 50% of the people at the conference
                                > were interested in other things, such as properties of the aether, cold
                                > fusion (Hal Fox was there, BTW), some weird "rail gun" experiments in
                                which
                                > the "bullet" went backwards. Francisco Mueller showed us a video, so I
                                know
                                > this is true! Make the bullet of brass and it goes forwards, but change
                                it
                                > to (magnetisable) steel and, if you are lucky, it goes back a little
                                before
                                > burning into the rail.

                                === Most of them are into product thinking and not into thinking about
                                thinking to find out how to do it properly. I'm pretty sure there are
                                several very weird effects to be had but few think that right through around
                                the reality mulberry bush. The bullet would show fields are important and
                                fields are neither particles nor waves. Fields may be one means to
                                reconcile an infinite universe with finitised appearances but this would
                                entail intra, supra and infra field transitional events. I'm also sure FTL
                                exists for the simple reason no UNI-verse can do without it but the
                                explanations are all cock-eyed. BEfore one can get simple one has to match
                                IT's complexity and understand it as a whole and then one can pick out what
                                nicely sums it up and not before. They've got no patienza.

                                Adrian.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.