RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit

RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 9:04:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL, you havent given ANYONE out here a bloody nose, in every case you have been whipped soundly and shown to be ineptly tinfoiling. Like your comment that some number of people proved that electricity (light) exceeds the speed of light. Trust me, if someone did that, even thru error, it would make the news, as this news did. as usual you need to create a strawman. Now you are going to prove that the strawman YOU created is wrong and hang it on me eh just spewing more of your: [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/bovineexcrementmeter.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 10:02:15 AM)
There is no strawman here, only absolute and irrefutable statement of fact. Tesla and company never proved that electricity exceeds the speed of light. Final. End of joke. He was not a madman.

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 10:16:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail There is no strawman here, and absolute and irrefutable statement of fact. Tesla and company never proved that electricity exceeds the speed of light. Final. End of joke. He was not a madman. Its also not in context with what I said. Thats what a bullshit is thats what a straw man is. professor wheatstone proved it, and tesla and others confirmed it. going to go into your typical mincing word bullshit again after proving in the we the people thread that you dont know the difference between a pronoun and proper noun? I already said its pi/2 c. Its in all the pre 1900 fucking electrical books. You know before science became commericalized and political. The real question is what the fuck is the matter with you constantly spewing trash science.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 10:20:26 AM)
not only did you say (utterly wrong) that time is a definite interval you said this: quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker Anything that will drive mass faster than light should be able to have the mass time travel too, (with some adjustments) and that is another can of worms. Nothing is going to drive a mass at light speed, let alone faster. Allowing for surprises, that's one thing we're pretty damn sure about. What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not we can manipulate the mass of an object. If would could do that, then ET wouldn't have to call home, we could take him. K. ok but wheatstone. tesla, messler, meyl all proved electricity can and does travel faster than the speed of light, now what? where does that leave us? What would be the context where there would be any appropriateness to this line of asswipe? If I have taken it out of context, explain what context it is in, because it is in the context of wholly and provably wrong for anyone to see.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 10:31:54 AM)
no pre 1900 electrical book of anything contains: PI/2 * C WHERE C IS CELERITY. pi/2 * c (cycles) yes. a sine wave. But what the fuck does that have to do with exceeding the speed of light. Hint: absofuckinglutely nothing. it is a strawman, a non sequitur, a nothing about nothing in this conversation, you might as well be talking about fish. Thats how topical it is.

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 11:22:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no pre 1900 electrical book of anything contains: PI/2 * C WHERE C IS CELERITY. pi/2 * c (cycles) yes. a sine wave. But what the fuck does that have to do with exceeding the speed of light. Hint: absofuckinglutely nothing. it is a strawman, a non sequitur, a nothing about nothing in this conversation, you might as well be talking about fish. Thats how topical it is. celerity [sɪˈlɛrɪtɪ]n rapidity; swiftness; speed[from Old French celerite, from Latin celeritās, from celer swift] you are so far into your usual nonsensical bozo land its impossible to even respond to this shit mess. just more of your usual [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/bovineexcrementmeter.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 11:27:12 AM)
You are an imbecile. You should keep silent on subjects you know nothing of (which are legion). http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/c.html So your pi/2 * c is cycles nothing else. You are caught out as an imbecile, again.

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 11:28:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You are an imbecile. You should keep silent on subjects you know nothing of (which are legion). http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/c.html So your pi/2 * c is cycles nothing else. You are caught out as an imbecile, again. I already explained it for those who are not idiots. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker Technically the negative mass you would have at the start of this process to have might be a problem. (Maybe that is what dark matter is.) But since a photon moves at the speed of light, it must then weigh an infinite amount, no? . . . no, its massless, which is WHY it travels at the speed of light anything exhibiting "radiation resistance" travels at the speed of light. everything vibtates. hence both a wave and particle. have a wonderful day.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 11:32:20 AM)
no, that has nothing to do with anything. We are not talking antennae here.

Kirata -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 5:11:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And are due to the tiny irregularities in the appartuses not from any kind of light transmission medium. That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905. However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air in the interferometer on the speed of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in excess of 300km/s. So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result. ~Abstract K.

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 5:29:40 PM)
so the speed of light has been measured with more accuracy. Thats all I can glean from it. One wonders at that edge of our envelope, if we are in focus, or if a new class of weirdness arises where everything (not just a glob of electrons and protons)is moving at the speed of light but I mean a grand bucketfull of that shit, if we (which the heisenberg uncertainty principle holds not true) tracking the same material or immaterial objects throughout the experiment. It was once a given and absolutely fixed postulate nearing law that one proton is indestinguishable from another, in fact the whole class is given that attribute.

Kirata -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 7:12:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail so the speed of light has been measured with more accuracy. Thats all I can glean from it. Given the context, the Michelson-Morley experiment and the fringe shift data, I understood it as referring to c+v. But in any case, the fringe shifts and the anisotropy they (appear to) represent is persistent in the literature. E.g.: 1. We demonstrate that Michelson-Morley tests, which detect direction-dependent anisotropies in the speed of light, can also be used... 2. We have studied the angular fluctuations in the speed of light with respect to the apex of the dipole of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation using the experimental data obtained with GRAAL facility... The results enable to obtain a conservative constraint on the anisotropy in the light speed variations... Etc., etc.... Some have proposed that the speed of light is only bidirectionally isotropic. Others have proposed that the anisotropy can be explained by time dilation/contraction effects rather than an actual variation in the speed of light. Suffice it to say that, the proclamations of priests notwithstanding, we don't appear to quite have a handle on it. K.

Termyn8or -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 7:20:43 PM)
"but wheatstone. tesla, messler, meyl all proved electricity can and does travel faster than the speed of light, now what? " Nope. Perhaps hole flow can be considered to be faster than C but it is not likely as in this case, electrons are like fluid and if they were to cavitate like the water when a submarine is accelerating quixkly, there would be evidence, and there is none we can detect at the moment. This could be proven wrong but I think it is not going to happen anytime soon. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/29/2011 7:41:47 PM)
"That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics." Your turn. That constant is bullshit. It's constant in relation to what ? Space has nothing to do with it as proven by the Doppler effect. However it is the velocity of the radiation of EM energy in a vacuum FROM IT'S SOURCE. That's all it is, and while it is more than the speed of sound and does differ, there are things to consider before commiting a letter of the alphabet forever. Deep in the ocean there are forms of life that live under the tremendous pressure that would kill us. If even brought to the surface of the water they would explode. If taken out of the water even organisms living not so deep would suffer, and actually persih if taken out of the water. Out of the water into our atmosphere. They would perish in our atmosphere as surely as we would if taken out of it. A vacuum only means the absence of gases really. It does not mean the absence of energy, and we are having a hard time telling that from matter. It has been proposed that there is something in the universe, akin to an atmosphere, but it is as non significant to us as the air above is to those deep sea creatures that cannot live without the weight of the ocean upon them. The environment in which they were born. So if C is a constant in space, which we consider a vacuum, what if there is something there ? The slowest speed of sound we know of is through the atmosphere because it is the least dense of the the media under consideration. However the speed of sound varies in a completely opposite way than light in relation to the density of the medium. Sound travels faster in a denser medium while the opposite is true of light. This is evidenced by the fact that you can read this page. The light is affected by the greater density of the lens(es) in you eye(s) to focus the image on your retina. Thee is no question that C is not C in anything but a vacuum, AS WE "SEE" IT. What is out there that we havn't "seen", just because it has never been revealed to us ? When you can answer that we will put you in a room with certain people here. You really don't want that. T^T

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/30/2011 1:22:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no, that has nothing to do with anything. We are not talking antennae here. we? got a mouse in your pocket? I do not knwo what you are talking because you do not know what you are talking about. I posted all the information in several threads had you bothered to crack the cover you would know what the fuck I am talking about.

Real0ne -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/30/2011 1:26:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "but wheatstone. tesla, messler, meyl all proved electricity can and does travel faster than the speed of light, now what? " Nope. Perhaps hole flow can be considered to be faster than C but it is not likely as in this case, electrons are like fluid and if they were to cavitate like the water when a submarine is accelerating quixkly, there would be evidence, and there is none we can detect at the moment. This could be proven wrong but I think it is not going to happen anytime soon. T^T not the same thing. Wheatstone with his crude equipment was only off by 4,000 on 292,000miles ps, which I believe is pretty impressive. They even talk about it on wiki but I have to laugh that they blow it away as "must have been a mistake" because they dont understand it.

DomKen -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/30/2011 2:50:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And are due to the tiny irregularities in the appartuses not from any kind of light transmission medium. That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905. However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air in the interferometer on the speed of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in excess of 300km/s. So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result. ~Abstract K. Published in a cold fusion magazine and written by a guy who rejects all of modern physics for his own pet theory. Will you really believe anything?

mnottertail -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/30/2011 3:48:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata 1. We demonstrate that Michelson-Morley tests, which detect direction-dependent anisotropies in the speed of light, can also be used... 2. We have studied the angular fluctuations in the speed of light with respect to the apex of the dipole of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation using the experimental data obtained with GRAAL facility... The results enable to obtain a conservative constraint on the anisotropy in the light speed variations... Etc., etc.... Some have proposed that the speed of light is only bidirectionally isotropic. Others have proposed that the anisotropy can be explained by time dilation/contraction effects rather than an actual variation in the speed of light. Suffice it to say that, the proclamations of priests notwithstanding, we don't appear to quite have a handle on it. K.[/font][/size] Oh, wait a fuckin minute, if that is what it is saying, oh hell no, thats tinfoiling. Mike and Morely definitively proved (since that was the point of the experiment) there was no foreshortening in any direction, no aether as a carrier, they went looking for these exact anomolies, and they weren't there, that data was combed fine tooth, that was the crisis that led to how the fuck does this shit work then and einsteins theory of relativity (which he wanted to name invariants theory) for this reason, because it is invariable in this respect. light is ubitquious and moves equally in every direction simultaneously. there is no foreshortening for there is no mass, as with 'material objects'. I fully misunderstood what was taking place here in your first quote. Nope. No fucking way, Kirata. There is no anomoly in that data, or Al Einstein would have remained a swiss patent clerk. And nobody but his mamma would wipe the drool off Hawkings chin, it would not be seen as an honourable profession.

Kirata -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/30/2011 4:16:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Published in a cold fusion magazine and written by a guy who rejects all of modern physics for his own pet theory. Will you really believe anything? Always the source, never the content. Right on track there, DK. Have a Bible. K.

Kirata -> RE: Breaking the ultimate speed limit (9/30/2011 4:39:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Mike and Morely definitively proved (since that was the point of the experiment) there was no foreshortening in any direction, they went looking for these exact anomolies, and they weren't there... The fringe shifts were not there in the expected values, but they were there. Observation During 2004 of Periodic Fringe-Shifts in an Adialeiptometric Stationary Michelson-Morley Experiment Firstly, it must be noted that MM did not obtain a zero shift of the reference fringe, as flatly expressed in both relativistic and classical mechanics textbooks, without any caveats whatsoever. Rather, they found that “the relative velocity of the earth and the aether is probably less than one sixth the earth’s orbital velocity, and certainly less than one fourth” [1, p.458]. This means that according to their data reduction process they found a motion of earth relative to the preferred frame that certainly was less than 7.5 km/s, and probably less than 5 km/s. These values are no doubt smaller than their incorrectly expected 30 km/s (see section 2.2), but certainly they were not zero. K.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02