A signal can propagate in arbitrary speed, if one solves a system of
equations that doesn't take all fields in considerations. Even Maxwell
equations allows that, in the coulomb gauge, and electric field to
propagate faster than light. But even so, relativity is not violated, since
the equations
If you can send gibberish faster than light than you can send information
faster than light.
for example:
gibberish-pause--gibberish
could be binary code for '5'
or morse code for 'K'
Harry
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
A signal can propagate in
, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John:
Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating
someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and
better educated than I am.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM
into the dime-box saloon!! The place could
use some female energy...
J
-mark
*From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John:
Do you have a citation for all these many
... if the aether were proven to be true, so don't hold your breath
there friend.
Gibson
From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Einstein considered
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to believe it is settled science as many do, you are welcome to
do so.
But I question it because no one is able to answer some very important
questions such as how a photon can be explained to be C unless we
Eric,
Some of these corner cases may have some bearing on cold fusion.
Harry
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote:
If you want to believe it is settled science as many do, you are
I would argue that people who are biased (confirmation bias, which is
intellectual dishonesty) applies to not just one subject for such people,
but many subjects. And Special Relativity would be a more contentions point
than even LENR since the later is not going against over a century of
science,
John:
Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone
elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better
educated than I am.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
Special Relativity has made the assumption
I'm not sure this is what you're getting at, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_communication
Birgit Dopfer's experiment
Although such communication is prohibited in the thought experiment
described above, some argue that superluminal communication could be
achieved via quantum
The Sagnac effect is a very good example.
Then there are various interferometry drift experiments, and most have
shown some degree of drift, just far less that a static aether the earth
moves through, positive results are more common than not. Results are often
interpreted to agree with SR, but
Here are some links:
http://www.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/
www.anti-relativity.com
http://www.mrelativity.net/ Many proofs against various aspects of SR
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html
]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John:
Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating someone
elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better
educated than I am.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014
some female energy...
J
-mark
*From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John:
Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating
someone elsewhere and she
use some female energy...
J
-mark
*From:* Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM
*To:* vortex-l
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
John:
Do you have a citation for all these many findings? I'm debating
someone
No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read
nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious arguments
focus on the constancy of the speed of light.
What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in
particular. It is a parameter that
More to the point -- or perhaps I should say, to the bit -- is that it
makes no more sense to talk about speeds greater than light than it does
probabilities greater than 1:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath216/kmath216.htm
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, D R Lunsford
Special relativity has limits which general relativity addresses. General
relativity has limits and that is what quantum gravity attempts to address.
There is the information paradox that requires some rework of general
relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004404
The universe is a flat
...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 10:35 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here
and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious
arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light
I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that, although Google presents the
linked article as the top result (at least to me), the rest of the first
page is an assortment of unrelated theory. How such an obviously important
isomorphism (that between special relativity's law of velocity addition and
the
D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.com wrote:
No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read
nonsense about how relativity is wrong.
So what? Who cares.
If the reputation of cold fusion depends on what is written here, cold
fusion is a lost cause. We might as well pack
Obviously true.
Indeed, it is so obviously true that I neglected to address it.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.com wrote:
No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read
nonsense about how
During the inflationary period of the universe, which was the first few
microseconds, the entire space-time continuum is proposed to have expanded
faster than the speed of light. Somehow this isn't viewed as a violation
of C being a constant. In my mind, it is easier to view the speed of light
In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a
distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C.
This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating
magnetic field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at
The geometry of spacetime is a clever way of encoding the postulates of
relativity theory, so of course spacetime will contain a parameter C. The
use of spacetime to describe experience depends on the scope of the
validity of the postulates.
Harry
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:42 PM, James Bowery
What about probability theory? Is that a clever way of encoding the
postulates of relativity theory?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
The geometry of spacetime is a clever way of encoding the postulates of
relativity theory, so of course spacetime will
Axil:
Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet
but not the actual paper.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a
distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal
From: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
Axil:
Can you point us to that writeup? I find references to it on the internet but
not the actual paper
http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html
The article referenced in this interview cost hundreds of dollars: Study
of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of
Gravity Impulses
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Kevin
*Abstract*
We propose here two new transformations between inertial frames that apply
for relative velocities greater than the speed of light, and that are
complementary to the Lorentz transformation, giving rise to the Einstein
special theory of relativity that applies to relative velocities less
I found something for free from the theorist that works with Yevgeny
Podkletnov
*G. Modanese*
Free University of Bolzano
Faculty of Science and Technology
Bolzano University
Italy
http://benthamscience.com/ebooks/Sample/9781608053995-sample.pdf
more...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0958.pdf
A comparison between the YBCO discharge experiments by E. Podkletnov
and C. Poher, and their theoretical interpretations
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
I found something for free from the theorist that works
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:35 AM, D R Lunsford antimatter3...@gmail.comwrote:
No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here and read
nonsense about how relativity is wrong.
You are no doubt correct about all of the nonsense going over this list
about relativity being wrong. I
I think it is time to remind people what this list is about.
http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html
The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional
research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous
energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman,
Eric, you are welcome to your opinion, here are the facts.
2 thought experiments I have presented created a paradox that has turned
out to be correct, disproving a commonly held component of General
Relativity, that G-force has time dilation equivalent to time dilation of
gravity (2 wikipedia
I don't know.
harry
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:51 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
What about probability theory? Is that a clever way of encoding the
postulates of relativity theory?
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
The geometry of spacetime
36 matches
Mail list logo
