Re: FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?
From: Ken Smith (kensmith_at_green.rahul.net)
Date: 08/13/04
- Next message: Ken Smith: "Re: low-noise low-power high-frequency dc-dc converter"
- Previous message: Ken Smith: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- In reply to: John Fields: "Re: FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?"
- Next in thread: John Fields: "Re: FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?"
- Reply: John Fields: "Re: FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:05:23 +0000 (UTC)
In article <t4aph0108pk6d1s37qqi6857d7pmfgvr5n@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[....]
>Not if the measurement is done correctly. Consider:
[... ascii art snipped ...]
How far away is the scope? Who's looking at it?
How do we know that the signal on the scope isn't just the result of
crosstalk from the input side of the experiment to the output?
How can we prove that the display on the scope really became valid when it
claims it did? IE: Could we have a semi-fed cat situation. Since the
effort here is to prove something about quantum physics, you can't just
assume the current theory is right because that leads to circular logic.
You've got to use some really bullet proof logic to prove FTL.
-- -- kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
- Next message: Ken Smith: "Re: low-noise low-power high-frequency dc-dc converter"
- Previous message: Ken Smith: "Re: Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911"
- In reply to: John Fields: "Re: FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?"
- Next in thread: John Fields: "Re: FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?"
- Reply: John Fields: "Re: FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|