greysky wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

greysky wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan, ignore these tiny minded hamsters, scooting over this newsgroup
pretending to be learned men of high standards. You obviously know better
anyway. Information is not what men define it to be. What humanity calls
information is not important - the universe cares not one whit for any of
mans constructions. It doesn't care whether you can manage to transmit
random coin flips or The Who through superluminal modalities, only that
you
have the intelligence to be able to take a natural phenomena and twist it
around your finger and bend it to your will. To the victor goes the
prize,
after all. To learn how it is done, check out www.allocations.cc

Why haven't you actually built a FTL radio yet and demonstrated its'
effectiveness?

Been there, done that. 1999 was a very good year... Now I'm waiting for
others to figure it out- on my terms, as usual.

....and how do you know it is transmitting information at FTL?




Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

greysky wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

greysky wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan, ignore these tiny minded hamsters, scooting over this newsgroup
pretending to be learned men of high standards. You obviously know
better
anyway. Information is not what men define it to be. What humanity
calls
information is not important - the universe cares not one whit for any
of
mans constructions. It doesn't care whether you can manage to transmit
random coin flips or The Who through superluminal modalities, only
that
you
have the intelligence to be able to take a natural phenomena and twist
it
around your finger and bend it to your will. To the victor goes the
prize,
after all. To learn how it is done, check out www.allocations.cc

Why haven't you actually built a FTL radio yet and demonstrated its'
effectiveness?

Been there, done that. 1999 was a very good year... Now I'm waiting for
others to figure it out- on my terms, as usual.

...and how do you know it is transmitting information at FTL?

Sometimes, it isn't necessary to use fancy equipment. Key a radio
transmitter and an FTL communicator at the same time, and time how long each
signal takes to show up at some remote location, say ten kilometers. Even a
regular analog oscilloscope is enough to show the difference. However, the
real test is to seperate the transmitter and reciever by say, a thousand
kilometers (ah, what a splendid time I had tooling around the american far
west, that year). The EM signal doesn't even show up whereas the FTL signal
appears just as strong as ever. No attenuation due to distance. Using an
isolated setup, running on its own battery power, and not using any possible
method of coupling a potential signal to the external environment- i.e. not
using an antenna or tuned circuits, while at the same time having the FTL
device transmitting a timing signal, WWV, as a source comparison. In all
cases, to within the resolution of the experiment, any delays can be
explained by taking into account the time it takes for the electronics to
process the signal, I.E. zero, or near zero propagation time. That's as FTL
as you can get in this universe, I suppose.






Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

greysky wrote:
[...]

any delays can be explained by taking into account the time it takes for the electronics to process the signal, I.E. zero, or near zero propagation time. That's as FTL as you can get in this universe, I suppose.

Ok.

Now demonstrate it for other people. People proclaiming amazing
discoveries on USENET are a dime a dozen. People proclaiming amazing
discoveries with evidence to back it up are a little harder to come by.


[...]

greysky wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

greysky wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

greysky wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan, ignore these tiny minded hamsters, scooting over this newsgroup
pretending to be learned men of high standards. You obviously know
better
anyway. Information is not what men define it to be. What humanity
calls
information is not important - the universe cares not one whit for any
of
mans constructions. It doesn't care whether you can manage to transmit
random coin flips or The Who through superluminal modalities, only
that
you
have the intelligence to be able to take a natural phenomena and twist
it
around your finger and bend it to your will. To the victor goes the
prize,
after all. To learn how it is done, check out www.allocations.cc

Why haven't you actually built a FTL radio yet and demonstrated its'
effectiveness?

Been there, done that. 1999 was a very good year... Now I'm waiting for
others to figure it out- on my terms, as usual.

...and how do you know it is transmitting information at FTL?

Sometimes, it isn't necessary to use fancy equipment. Key a radio
transmitter and an FTL communicator at the same time, and time how long each
signal takes to show up at some remote location, say ten kilometers. Even a
regular analog oscilloscope is enough to show the difference. However, the
real test is to seperate the transmitter and reciever by say, a thousand
kilometers (ah, what a splendid time I had tooling around the american far
west, that year). The EM signal doesn't even show up whereas the FTL signal
appears just as strong as ever. No attenuation due to distance. Using an
isolated setup, running on its own battery power, and not using any possible
method of coupling a potential signal to the external environment- i.e. not
using an antenna or tuned circuits, while at the same time having the FTL
device transmitting a timing signal, WWV, as a source comparison. In all
cases, to within the resolution of the experiment, any delays can be
explained by taking into account the time it takes for the electronics to
process the signal, I.E. zero, or near zero propagation time. That's as FTL
as you can get in this universe, I suppose.

The magnetic couples that QM is ~blind~ to *are* FTL.
But they are near field effects that dimiinsh by 1/r^3
and they transport no energy or the mass equivalent
so they don't violate the finite speed of light.

When you include the energy necessary to move a
remote charge, or include the statistical integration time to
extract a weak signal, there is no net gain for the
information channel, beyond what the finite speed
of light can achieve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

Sue...









Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Dear Tom Roberts,

Information is massless.

Hmmm. That is either wrong or irrelevant, depending on what you mean.
Shannon showed that there is a minimum energy per bit that must be
transferred in order to transfer information. Energy cannot be
transferred faster than c.

What you are saying is nonsense. I happen to have a Ph.D. degree in
Computer Science. One photon can carry in principle an unlimited number
of "bits" (as unit of information). If you are able to distinguish
between 2 power N different energy levels of the photon, you can
transport N bits with one photon. That's why fibreglas communication
cables have such a formidable bandwidth. Each distinguishable color
(energy level of photon...) creates an entire separate channel for
information transmission. If you want to scram even more information in
one photon, you can devise an interpretation scheme for the arrival
time of a photon. 2 power M different timeframes in which a photon can
arrive gives you M bits per photon. We have already N * M bits per
photon, in which neither N nor M has a theoretical upperbound. So the
weight of information is... nil.

Connected particles can exchange information
about spin and polarization immediately, i.e. infinitely fast.

Not true. Moreover, they do not do so in these experiments.

Repeat the mantra: correlation is not causation. These experiments
display CORRELATION, not causation or communication (other than with the
photons at speed = c).

I know the theoretical difference between correlation and causation,
Tom. We have to do with practice. In practice correlation can be used
to transport information infinitely fast.

Do you know Quantum Mechanics Tom? Have you ever heard of the two-slit
experiment? QED, written by Richard Feynman, is a good introductory
text on this phenomenon. The generally accepted interpretation of
Feynman is that a photon evaluates INFINITELY FAST all possible paths,
assigns a probability to each path, and then choses at random a path,
respecting the assigned probability function. This means that causation
is not limited to the speed of light. As soon as you close one of the
two slits, the photon that is going to be emitted knows this
IMMEDIATELY. Connected/coupled particles offer the possibility to
exploit this infinitely fast "sensing" capability to communicate
information faster than the speed of light. Read the works of Anton
Zeilinger for instance.

SR is dead anyway, because there is no solution for the
twin-contradiction.

Again, you are wrong. There is no "contradiction" in any twin scenario
in SR. But yes, SR does not agree with naive expectations. shrug

I do not consider myself "naive". I have always excelled in math, and I
understand that S.R. is impossible as theory to explain the outcome of
the Michelson-Morley Experiment. There IS NO theory in which the
universe appears the same, regardless of inertial frame (considering
the properties of light). S.R. is a good try, but it won't work because
you will get into trouble as soon as you start accelerating.

There is a twin-experiment possible with only one acceleration, namely
that of the traveling clock at the far destination, to reverse speed
for the back journey. As soon as the traveling clock arrives back at
the stationary clock, it is discovered that the stationary clock is
time T ahead instead of time T behind, contrary to what was to be
expected, based upon the principles of S.R. The only cause can be the
one acceleration in the journey of the traveling clock. Because only
during this acceleration the conditions of S.R. were broken, it is that
during this acceleration the stationary clock overtook/caught-up the
time difference of no less than 2 * T. However, the length of T is
dependent on the length of the journey and not on the length or
intensity of the acceleration. If the traveling clock were to travel
ten times as fast, the same acceleration to return would have a
ten-fold overtake/catch-up as NECESSARY consequence to ensure
consistence of clocks upon arrival.

This weird overtake/catch-up behaviour is against symmetries in nature
that are far more basic than the symmetry that is "gained" by S.R.
Moreover: it is against what everyone knows of nature. The necessary
overtake/catch-up behaviour can be detected! The stationary clock can
send pulses at regular times by radio or light signals. They will be
received by the traveling clock, obeying the rules of Doppler and S.R.,
as long as there is no acceleration. As soon as the traveling clock
starts accelerating (decelerating/accelerating if you will) to return
back, there should come in a sudden burst of clock pulses of the
stationary clock. If the journey was longer, the burst will be stronger
and more frantic, to catch-up the "lost" time. Every object in the
neighborhood of the traveling clock, that did not this long journey,
but that is subjected to the same acceleration, receives the same
"burst" in clock pulses from the stationary clock. The "burst" can be
arbitrarily intense, because there is no theoretical limit on the
length of the journey. The universe should have if it were a "memory"
for the time-loss that has to be compensated during the acceleration.

Of course the universe has no such memory. S.R. leads to unacceptable
consequences. We know the universe does not work this way, therefore
S.R. is not a valid mathematical model for the reality of the universe.
It's a pitty for mister Einstein. He is one of the biggest jokers that
science has known. He has misled the world for more than 100 years (101
if I am well informed) with a fallacy that is so convoluted that
everyone thought it was brilliant.

However, the error can be exposed with less than 100 lines of plain
english text, as shown above. What distinguishes me from all the
parrots on this forum (the majority) that "believe" in S.R.? I have the
courage to use my common sense and to draw conclusions.

You have been misled, Tom.

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

greysky wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

greysky wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

greysky wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan, ignore these tiny minded hamsters, scooting over this
newsgroup
pretending to be learned men of high standards. You obviously know
better
anyway. Information is not what men define it to be. What humanity
calls
information is not important - the universe cares not one whit for
any
of
mans constructions. It doesn't care whether you can manage to
transmit
random coin flips or The Who through superluminal modalities, only
that
you
have the intelligence to be able to take a natural phenomena and
twist
it
around your finger and bend it to your will. To the victor goes the
prize,
after all. To learn how it is done, check out www.allocations.cc

Why haven't you actually built a FTL radio yet and demonstrated its'
effectiveness?

Been there, done that. 1999 was a very good year... Now I'm waiting
for
others to figure it out- on my terms, as usual.

...and how do you know it is transmitting information at FTL?

Sometimes, it isn't necessary to use fancy equipment. Key a radio
transmitter and an FTL communicator at the same time, and time how long
each
signal takes to show up at some remote location, say ten kilometers. Even
a
regular analog oscilloscope is enough to show the difference. However,
the
real test is to seperate the transmitter and reciever by say, a thousand
kilometers (ah, what a splendid time I had tooling around the american
far
west, that year). The EM signal doesn't even show up whereas the FTL
signal
appears just as strong as ever. No attenuation due to distance. Using an
isolated setup, running on its own battery power, and not using any
possible
method of coupling a potential signal to the external environment- i.e.
not
using an antenna or tuned circuits, while at the same time having the FTL
device transmitting a timing signal, WWV, as a source comparison. In all
cases, to within the resolution of the experiment, any delays can be
explained by taking into account the time it takes for the electronics to
process the signal, I.E. zero, or near zero propagation time. That's as
FTL
as you can get in this universe, I suppose.

The magnetic couples that QM is ~blind~ to *are* FTL.
But they are near field effects that dimiinsh by 1/r^3
and they transport no energy or the mass equivalent
so they don't violate the finite speed of light.

When you include the energy necessary to move a
remote charge, or include the statistical integration time to
extract a weak signal, there is no net gain for the
information channel, beyond what the finite speed
of light can achieve.

You should really, and I mean *really* read my web site before you accuse me
of making so... mundane an error. In actuality, I am not even using raw, in
the wild, operator entanglements. If it were so simple, FTL would have been
discovered long ago as a direct consequence of QM. It is not that simple.
EPR correlations can only be taken as a signpost, a way of knowing that the
universe does allow superluminal correlations to occur. Two strong
conclusions can be reached: 1. QM not only allows FTL information
propagation to occur, it actually mandates it. The universe can not exist if
FTL communications were not real. 2. The universe does not discriminate
between types of information - there is no cosmic cop purposely blocking
meaningful information from the more mundane, random quantum kind of
information. If you are intelligent enough to get a system of FTL
information transmission up and running, you can transfer *any* information
anywhere. Of course, this results in a corollary 'law';, namely that QM is a
more powerful description of physical reality than GR. Relativity must bow
to QM whenever the two results come into conflict. Like I said, read my web
site...

Greysky

www.alocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Shannon showed that there is a minimum energy per bit that must be
transferred in order to transfer information. Energy cannot be
transferred faster than c.

What you are saying is nonsense.

No, it is standard information theory.


I happen to have a Ph.D. degree in
Computer Science.

Then you should have taken at least one course in information theory.
Why didn't you? Or at least, why don't you understand the basics of
information theory?


One photon can carry in principle an unlimited number
of "bits" (as unit of information).

This is simply not true. IN PRINCIPLE you cannot avoid the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, and it will ALWAYS limit what information can be
transferred by a single photon. Moreover, your whole notion of "one
photon" is a misnomer -- photons are quantum objects and do not behave
the way you seem to think they do. In general, the number of photons
present in a system is NOT a good quantum number.


If you are able to distinguish
between 2 power N different energy levels [...] So the
weight of information is... nil.

Obviously you have never done this, have never studied information
theory, and have never studied quantum mechanics. Go do so before making
statements about subjects you CLEARLY know nothing about. If you
actually do have a Ph.D. this should pose no obstacle for you.

And your shifting from energy to "weight" is a GREAT BIG RED FLAG
indicating you do not know what you are talking about.


I know the theoretical difference between correlation and causation,
Tom. We have to do with practice. In practice correlation can be used
to transport information infinitely fast.

Then apply your knowledge of the difference to the ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS.
All they show is CORRELATION. In particular, they display no evidence of
causation, and no evidence of information transfer (other than transfer
with the photons with speed = c).


Do you know Quantum Mechanics Tom?

Yes, reasonably well. Clearly you do not. shrug


The generally accepted interpretation of
Feynman is that a photon evaluates INFINITELY FAST all possible paths,
assigns a probability to each path, and then choses at random a path,
respecting the assigned probability function.

No. You need to go back and re-read Feynman's book _QED_. You have this
seriously garbled, so much so that what you say is just plain wrong.


SR is dead anyway, because there is no solution for the
twin-contradiction.
Again, you are wrong. There is no "contradiction" in any twin scenario
in SR. But yes, SR does not agree with naive expectations. shrug

I do not consider myself "naive".

Everything you have written here is either naive or wrong. Mostly the
latter. shrug


I have always excelled in math, and I
understand that S.R. is impossible as theory to explain the outcome of
the Michelson-Morley Experiment.

Then you have not applied your skills.


[... too much nonsense for one post]


Tom Roberts

greysky wrote:
Relativity must bow
to QM whenever the two results come into conflict. Like I said, read
my web
site...

Indeed you do cite *Quantum Physics* as the basis for your beliefs.
http://www.allocations.cc/
Your apparatus looks interesting but I think it might be
much simpler if you simply trap the the quantum faries
that explore all paths, wear wrist-watches and carry
magnetic monopoles and convince them to do your bidding.

I hear they are attracted to jewlery but you might sprinkle
a bit of fairy dust on it to increase the probabilty they
will take the bait. QM is about probability so quantum
fairies like that too. )

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...n-lecture.html
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Th.../dp/0691024170
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~slu/on_resea...n_science.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

Sue...



Greysky

www.alocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

wrote:
Dear Tom Roberts,



What you are saying is nonsense. I happen to have a Ph.D. degree in
Computer Science. One photon can carry in principle an unlimited number
of "bits" (as unit of information).

This doesn't make you a physicist. It makes you a ****ing clown and a
disgrace to your profession. You are nothing but anothe wacko that
thinks that you have disproved relativity.
Well, you haven't, you just demonstrated your ignorance.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
greysky wrote:
Relativity must bow
to QM whenever the two results come into conflict. Like I said, read
my web
site...

Indeed you do cite *Quantum Physics* as the basis for your beliefs.
http://www.allocations.cc/
Your apparatus looks interesting but I think it might be
much simpler if you simply trap the the quantum faries
that explore all paths, wear wrist-watches and carry
magnetic monopoles and convince them to do your bidding.

I hear they are attracted to jewlery but you might sprinkle
a bit of fairy dust on it to increase the probabilty they
will take the bait. QM is about probability so quantum
fairies like that too. )


Geting a quantum fariey to do your bidding is like nailing jelly to a tree.
I would say it building my FTL device over the last 2 decades was the easier
option. But, you can use the fairy services if you want to ...


http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...n-lecture.html
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Th.../dp/0691024170
http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~slu/on_resea...n_science.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

Sue...



Greysky

www.alocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.