ET signals just get ignored because uncomfortable for people to accept; so
they form a mindset based on false physics paradigm
Tesla detected alien signals
>>In 1901, while Tesla was conducting experiments tapping into the earth's
>>geomagnetic pulse for sending electronic messages, his
In Sabine's most recent video on the search for ET,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwOcc-buSsg
she concludes by saying that the reason we have not detected ET is that we
have not developed the right technology to pick up their communication. If
there is anyway to send information faster than the
i.e. the modern version of Ptolemaic epicycles
On Sunday, 14 June 2020, 01:31:32 BST, ROGER ANDERTON
wrote:
>>I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction
>>that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.<<
I think its bluff.
Go back to
>>I wonder what they mean by "information" when they say in the introduction
>>that the "information speed" never exceeds the speed light.<<
I think its bluff.
Go back to Einstein 1905 when he started all this relativity madness, he never
said anything about there being "information speed".
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about
> superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and even
> classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than the
> speed of light.
>
In reply to Jürg Wyttenbach's message of Sat, 13 Jun 2020 00:27:41 +0200:
Hi,
[snip]
>https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
Tesla assumed that the signal went around the Earth. If one instead assumes a
light speed
I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about
superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and
even classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than
the speed of light.
This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least
Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as
evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think
this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been
tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second, the
structure
By "domain" I mean something more like a world-view.
The mechanical philosophers of the 17th century gave modern physics the
world-view that matter is to be analysed as something
that is inactive, inanimate or dead. They also insisted that physics must
explain how things come about using only
Freeman Dyson explains why he is comfortable without unification:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcicI_GJGcM
Harry
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
wrote:
> >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
> respective domains<<
>
> When "they" talk of those
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
wrote:
> >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their
> respective domains<<
>
> When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving;
> general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and
>
>>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective
>>domains<<
When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving; general
relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and quantum mechanics
supposedly fails to be able to deal with
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
wrote:
> >>Thoughts?<<
>
> there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity)
> with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them
> then they are not on solid ground.
>
>
I only mentioned SR because it
>>Thoughts?<<
there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity) with
quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them then
they are not on solid ground.
>From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood so
>false claims are
Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an
FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e.
unmeasured state is also a type of information.
If the transmitter
15 matches
Mail list logo
