Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorbr
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2015
     
    Posted By: Andrew Palfreymantoo rights don't make a billabong, cobber
    I thought they made an airplane?
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2015
     
    2 brothers.
  1.  
    Posted By: br
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanYabut Fig. 2 !!
    I thought of pursuing it, but I'm sure he won't play.
    Lubos Motl will not play that game
  2.  
    What's that to do with dancing archbishops?
    • CommentAuthorbr
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2015 edited
     
    Posted By: cwattersAllen's experiment repeated...

    http://forum.rs2theory.org/instant-transmission-electric-force
    Yes, I was aware of this site, and also aware of his 'explanation' saying that it is just a reflection (which 'undoes' the phase shift, so the reflected signal has no phase shift, thus appearing FTL while not actually being FTL).

    Thinking about this some more, the explanation makes no sense to me. AIUI, a reflection can either add no phase shift (high to low index), or pi phase shift (low to high index). Drawing out a simple picture of their setup, with radiation being reflected from a nearby object somewhere, probably the floor they have the experiment on, and neither of these types of reflection can explain a 'stationary' phase at the receiver, as a function of transmitter-receiver distance.

    The only possible reflection explanation I can see is that there is a reflection from some object 'far' away, so that the change in antennae separation makes almost no difference (because the reflection path has nearly the same total length). In this case, there will be very little dependence on signal strength vs distance, as the radiation travels pretty much the same path no matter how far apart the antennae are.

    Another explanation is cable pickup, but again the signal strength should not decay with T-R distance. I note that neither they nor Allen plot the signal amplitude vs distance. I have asked Allen for this information, and he said he will try to dig it out.

    I also doubt that their other test, holding a conducting sheet between the antennae to block the Coulomb signal, should block the signal. Maybe it could if it was grounded properly, but I don't think an isolated conductor should screen the Coulomb field. It can become polarised, but that very polarisation will 'retransmit' the field on the opposite side! (edit: oops, I reread the article, the plate was grounded, but it would still need a >75 MHz frequency response, and that big sheet looks like it would not have it(!). So I'm still not convinced it should block as they think it should).

    Thoughts?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeFeb 10th 2015
     
    Once again no mention of the difference in signal level beween the two things being compared in phase. Several ways you can go wrong with that.
  3.  
    How do the detectors differentiate between the static Coulomb force signal and the radiated signal? I suppose they presume that the sidelobe attenuation for end-on tests is so high for the radiative part that it's mostly force.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgoatcheez
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2019
     
    Star Trek's Warp Speed Visualized Using Our Solar System For Reference

    https://geekologie.com/2019/11/star-treks-warp-speed-visualized-using-o.php
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2019 edited
     
    Where did they get the conversion factor? I always thought that the only way to make it work was to have the "warp" be the exponent. So "warp 9" would be c9 which would be a bit faster than just c x 1516.
    It's the only way to get anywhere inside an hour-long TV script.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2019
     
    Are hypothetical impossibilities really worth calculating in detail?
  4.  
    Not only that... but how do you _slow down_ ??
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2019
     
    Go the other way?
  5.  
    Warp -9 ofc.
  6.  
    The most depressing thing about space is that it is so damned large. The second most depressing thing is that light is so slow.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDuracell
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2019
     
    The third most depressing thing is that there is no end to it. It just goes on and on and on. Forever ...
  7.  
    ... or at least it goes on and on faster than we can go on and on, so we can never catch up ...
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2019
     
    Become a worm rider.