Re: An Immortality device....Hmmmm

Posted by Pasti on Jun 15, 2003 at 06:42
(64.10.121.146)

Re: An Immortality device....Hmmmm (Paul)

"internet and with whom Paul was happy to commiserate.
If I recall correctly , I told him it was a good idea , that is all."

You do recall correctly, but not in full.Let me quote you in full message #612(your message as you can easily check) from what is now the Spring '03 archive:

"Mr Orman
these guys know that the laws of physics cannot be broken.Or at least that's what they have been brainwashed into believing.This is not a science forum by the way ,it is a literacy forum and a gathering place for abusive remarks."

That's where you were comiserating with the FTL guy, as from one "ostracized" person to another.
So don't play the innocent game, at least not with me.

"If you still think that the speed of light is not yet broken then where have you been?"

No kiddin'!Gee, science does advance fast these days...

"I believe it was something like 300 times the speed of light...
By fireing a laser through a container of cessium."

Right! With a refractive index of n=-310.And since you are such an expert on electrodynamics too,why don't you take some time from your extra busy schedule and explain me in detail what means a negative refractive index,or alternatively, an imaginary electric or magnetic permitivity.I would really appreciate that 8-))

"His device appeared to be a sort of accelerator on a small budget.Every few feet or so his device had what appeared to be transformers where electricity is either boosted in voltage (strenght)or in current(speed)."

If you had any clue at all about electricity,you would realize the sheer stupidity of the above.The fact that he used op-ams doesn't matter, you usually use a buffer (that is a follower)at "emmiting end" of any transmission line, and another buffer at the "receiving end".In a more general case, you must match the impedance of the source, receiver and transmission line to avoid "standing waves" on the line.
So the op-amps are irrelevant.And in the case of the current, given a potential difference in the circuit, the speed of the electrons is pretty much setfor a charge by the potential difference,so any increase in current is due to the increase in charge density, and not speed of the charge.

"There is no set speed limits as to the speed that a charge can be passed from one electron to another now is there?"

Actually, there is, and not surprisingly, it is the speed of light.And BTW, the electrons ARE the charged particles, they do not "pass charge" from one to another.
I would say this is another field of physics where you need to hit the books.

"Otherwise the laser / cessium results are faked also and that wouldnt say too much for the scientist involved wouild it?"

Have you ever heard about misinterpretation of experimental data? This is what happens when people with not enough knowledge in a field (not unlike you)set up to work in that field. If you ever bother to read the article,I think it was first published in Nature (which indeed tells something about the authors!), you will see that their experiment is very similar in certain aspects to the "experimental proof" the FTL guy offers for his claims.



Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]