while tha fastest detector we have is the eye
detecting light, this directly implies that

other detectors must exists in order to detect other
signals, at higher speeds and lower amplitude

if my biological or non-biological sensor detects
faster signals, say 2c, than this absolutely does
not violate causality

even if the signals propagate instantaneous, the
causality will still stand unviolated

our inability to detect our detectors, does not
imply that we dont posses these detectors

consequently, these high fidelity sensors, for
detection of high speed signals, must exists

and the detected signals may be other type,
not EM

"hungus" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ups.com...
while tha fastest detector we have is the eye
detecting light, this directly implies that

other detectors must exists in order to detect other
signals, at higher speeds and lower amplitude

if my biological or non-biological sensor detects
faster signals, say 2c, than this absolutely does
not violate causality

even if the signals propagate instantaneous, the
causality will still stand unviolated

our inability to detect our detectors, does not
imply that we dont posses these detectors

consequently, these high fidelity sensors, for
detection of high speed signals, must exists

and the detected signals may be other type,
not EM


Those EM waves exist with superluminal behaviour.
Prof. Nimtz from university cologne found them

These electromagnetic waves have a exponential
decrease of the amplitude with distance.

The detectors are the same as for normal light.

Josef

"Josef Matz" wrote in message
...

"hungus" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
ups.com...
while tha fastest detector we have is the eye
detecting light, this directly implies that
other detectors must exists in order to detect other
signals, at higher speeds and lower amplitude

It implies nothing of the sort.

if my biological or non-biological sensor detects
faster signals, say 2c, than this absolutely does
not violate causality

Then you don't understand causality as it applies to relativity

even if the signals propagate instantaneous, the
causality will still stand unviolated


Then you don't understand causality as it applies to relativity

our inability to detect our detectors, does not
imply that we dont posses these detectors

Eh?

consequently, these high fidelity sensors, for
detection of high speed signals, must exists

Why?

and the detected signals may be other type,
not EM

If suchsignals exists, then yes, there is no reason to conclude they must be
EM. Indeed ,it is EM in particular that is restricted to c

Those EM waves exist with superluminal behaviour.
Prof. Nimtz from university cologne found them

That's debatable

These electromagnetic waves have a exponential
decrease of the amplitude with distance.
The detectors are the same as for normal light.

On Sep 12, 5:25 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Josef Matz" wrote in message

...



"hungus" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
while tha fastest detector we have is the eye
detecting light, this directly implies that
other detectors must exists in order to detect other
signals, at higher speeds and lower amplitude

It implies nothing of the sort.

if my biological or non-biological sensor detects
faster signals, say 2c, than this absolutely does
not violate causality

Then you don't understand causality as it applies to relativity

becus you say so, fuk you

try arguing your foken statement, in order for me or
sombody else to contradict you

or you dont want ta be contradicted, what a gay


even if the signals propagate instantaneous, the
causality will still stand unviolated

Then you don't understand causality as it applies to relativity

our inability to detect our detectors, does not
imply that we dont posses these detectors

Eh?

consequently, these high fidelity sensors, for
detection of high speed signals, must exists

Why?

and the detected signals may be other type,
not EM

If suchsignals exists, then yes, there is no reason to conclude they must be
EM. Indeed ,it is EM in particular that is restricted to c

Those EM waves exist with superluminal behaviour.
Prof. Nimtz from university cologne found them

That's debatable

These electromagnetic waves have a exponential
decrease of the amplitude with distance.
The detectors are the same as for normal light.

"tha dyxilectic troll" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 12, 5:25 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Josef Matz" wrote in message

...



"hungus" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
while tha fastest detector we have is the eye
detecting light, this directly implies that
other detectors must exists in order to detect other
signals, at higher speeds and lower amplitude

It implies nothing of the sort.

if my biological or non-biological sensor detects
faster signals, say 2c, than this absolutely does
not violate causality

Then you don't understand causality as it applies to relativity

becus you say so, fuk you

No .. because you don't

try arguing your foken statement, in order for me or
sombody else to contradict you
or you dont want ta be contradicted, what a gay

I was going to explain it .. but **** you arsehole .. go and troll somewhere
else

On Sep 14, 1:55 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"tha dyxilectic troll" wrote in oglegroups.com...



On Sep 12, 5:25 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Josef Matz" wrote in message

...

"hungus" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
while tha fastest detector we have is the eye
detecting light, this directly implies that
other detectors must exists in order to detect other
signals, at higher speeds and lower amplitude

It implies nothing of the sort.

if my biological or non-biological sensor detects
faster signals, say 2c, than this absolutely does
not violate causality

Then you don't understand causality as it applies to relativity

becus you say so, fuk you

No .. because you don't

try arguing your foken statement, in order for me or
sombody else to contradict you
or you dont want ta be contradicted, what a gay

I was going to explain it ..

yeah? then why you dident explained it in tha first place

you foken lying coward

but **** you arsehole .. go and troll somewhere
else