| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Perfectly Innocent" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2003 10:21:44 AM |
| Object: |
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper39.pdf
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper49.pdf
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated
wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable
faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going
on. If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always
particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of
probabilities. All quantum mechanists know the rules of adding
amplitudes but I would like to know if something new about quantum
mechanical tunneling has been revealed. Are individual photons in
these experiments moving at velocities faster than light?
Answer:
The sheer mention of this result together with Einstein's theory of
special relativity and the principle of causality is a scam. Not a
single photon is moving faster than light.
The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating
causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the
media hype is pure distortion. The fact that the dramatic 60 ns
advance is only one fiftieth of the width of the pulse is a clear
indication of this.
If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of
relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you.
It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion
faster than light.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Is there a real empirically confirmed theory of superluminal
velocities? No, not yet. But there is no evil in being able to
conceptualize such things.
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
20 Oct 2003 05:52:58 AM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent:
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated
wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable
faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going
on.
Neither.
If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always
particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of
probabilities.
Right.
All quantum mechanists know the rules of adding amplitudes but I
would like to know if something new about quantum mechanical tunneling
has been revealed.
Yeah. That it doesn't make sense to think of quantum mechanics in the
same way one thinks of classical mechanics.
Are individual photons in these experiments moving
at velocities faster than light?
That doesn't really make much sense quantum mechanically.
Answer:
The sheer mention of this result together with Einstein's theory of
special relativity and the principle of causality is a scam. Not a
single photon is moving faster than light.
Whatever.
The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating
causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the
media hype is pure distortion.
Don't read the media hype.
The fact that the dramatic 60 ns advance is only one fiftieth of
the width of the pulse is a clear indication of this.
The fact that you're looking at a pulse means you aren't looking
at photons. However, I don't really feel like explaining it in
detail, as I'm sure it won't matter.
If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of
relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you.
The "facts" you've mentioned don't really say much about it
one way or the other.
It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion
faster than light.
Sure, if you give light a mass. Then, a photon is just like any other
massive particle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
20 Oct 2003 11:55:10 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent:
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated
wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable
faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going
on.
What do you mean by 'faster than light'? SR does not forbid considering
things happening faster than light (eg the sweep of a torch over clouds) but
the sending of information faster then light is not what is allowed. The
effects your alluded to can not be used to send information faster than
light.
Thanks
Bill
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
19 Oct 2003 01:34:51 PM |
|
|
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message news:c45b45b3.0310190721.44eef764@posting.google.com...
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper39.pdf
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper49.pdf
See today's reply on a similar thread in sci.physics:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=5zjkb.821525$uu5.145166@sccrnsc04
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mathew Orman" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
19 Oct 2003 02:06:02 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:fPAkb.89991$gs2.4255791@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0310190721.44eef764@posting.google.com...
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper39.pdf
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper49.pdf
See today's reply on a similar thread in sci.physics:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=5zjkb.821525$uu5.145166@sccrnsc04
Dirk Vdm
The Java applet is false
it shows several component waves traveling with different speed,
the top is the slowest and the bottom the fastest.
Also it is irrelevant to the subject of single pulse transient.
Bologna mathematicians are not able to show such applets for the single
gaussian pulse transient!
Mathematical bologna!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
20 Oct 2003 07:59:18 PM |
|
|
I know what goes faster than the speed of light.
The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of
light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference
frame is just as good as anybody else's.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
21 Oct 2003 09:33:15 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310201659.554e4d09@posting.google.com>...
I know what goes faster than the speed of light.
The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of
light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference
frame is just as good as anybody else's.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Sure. From a non-inertial frame of reference, you can observe massive
objects traveling faster than c. So?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
20 Oct 2003 08:51:50 PM |
|
|
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
I know what goes faster than the speed of light.
The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of
light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference
frame is just as good as anybody else's.
You are not talking about the motion of the stars. You are talking about
changing coordinate systems.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
21 Oct 2003 03:01:23 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<bn23fs$rlul6$1@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
I know what goes faster than the speed of light.
The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of
light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference
frame is just as good as anybody else's.
You are not talking about the motion of the stars. You are talking about
changing coordinate systems.
Bob Kolker
Motion is relative. They are not moving in their own reference frame,
but they are in mine.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Octafish" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
23 Oct 2003 05:15:50 AM |
|
|
(Starblade Darksquall) wrote in message news:<4aa861fb.0310202309.165b29af@posting.google.com>...
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<bn23fs$rlul6$1@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
I know what goes faster than the speed of light.
The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of
light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference
frame is just as good as anybody else's.
You are not talking about the motion of the stars. You are talking about
changing coordinate systems.
Bob Kolker
Motion is relative. They are not moving in their own reference frame,
but they are in mine.
Wrong. However, possibly the majority of everthing in the universe
*is* moving away from us at superluminal velocities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
23 Oct 2003 08:05:16 AM |
|
|
Octafish wrote:
Wrong. However, possibly the majority of everthing in the universe
*is* moving away from us at superluminal velocities.
Wrong. You are making the Galilean error of assuming that velocities add.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
23 Oct 2003 08:30:24 AM |
|
|
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Octafish wrote:
Wrong. However, possibly the majority of everthing in the universe
*is* moving away from us at superluminal velocities.
Wrong. You are making the Galilean error of assuming that velocities add.
You are making the special relativistic error (i.e., the universe is not
modeled by special relativity) that there is a unique definition of
velocity. Some (reasonable) definitions of cosmological velocity give
superluminal speeds. This doesn't violate the spirit of relativity since
these superluminal speeds cannot be used for information transfer.
Another possible stance is that there is no reasonable general
definition of distance and speed in general relativity, and therefore
this whole discussion is meaningless.
Regards,
George
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "holog" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
20 Oct 2003 09:23:24 PM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Starblade Darksquall wrote:
I know what goes faster than the speed of light.
The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of
light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference
frame is just as good as anybody else's.
You are not talking about the motion of the stars. You are talking about
changing coordinate systems.
Bob Kolker
I thought he was just dizzy.
holog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
20 Oct 2003 10:36:08 PM |
|
|
holog wrote:
I thought he was just dizzy.
She
.
|
|
|
| User: "Starblade Darksquall" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
21 Oct 2003 04:08:01 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F94A9A4.14C6519E@mchsi.com>...
holog wrote:
I thought he was just dizzy.
She
Thanks.
I really shouldn't spin around so much all the time.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
19 Oct 2003 12:12:33 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
And yet Nature's speed limit is not locally violated for mass in
motion, propagation of electromagnetic radiation or communication
of information.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
19 Oct 2003 11:07:40 AM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper39.pdf
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper49.pdf
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated
wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable
faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going
on. If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always
particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of
probabilities. All quantum mechanists know the rules of adding
amplitudes but I would like to know if something new about quantum
mechanical tunneling has been revealed. Are individual photons in
these experiments moving at velocities faster than light?
Answer:
The sheer mention of this result together with Einstein's theory of
special relativity and the principle of causality is a scam. Not a
single photon is moving faster than light.
The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating
causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the
media hype is pure distortion. The fact that the dramatic 60 ns
advance is only one fiftieth of the width of the pulse is a clear
indication of this.
If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of
relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you.
It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion
faster than light.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Is there a real empirically confirmed theory of superluminal
velocities? No, not yet. But there is no evil in being able to
conceptualize such things.
Eugene Shubert
Suppose a particle is moving along in tandem with the group wave. SR
velocity addition applies to the particle, and the speed of the particle
wrt lab frame is
(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)
and since for any velocity of the particle wrt the frame of any given
phase wave, the speed of the particle must always be less than c, then
according to the equation it will always be less than c wrt lab frame
also.
What we have in the cesium experiment though, is an apparent inability
to correlate the group wave to that of a particle moving in parallel to
it at the same velocity. If the group velocity exceeds c, then no
particle can move along in tandem with it. The interesting thing is,
that at c, the particle will traverse infinite lab frame distance in
zero time wrt its own frame, thus the group speed which is greater, per
above, requires that this group wave move backward in time wrt lab
frame.
However the group wave will not actually appear at the outlet before the
beam strikes the surface of the cesium cell, for obvious reasons, one of
which is that a shutter can be located at the entry point of the cell
that can shut off access of the photons to the cell after the group node
has already exited. Thus the beam will have never entered the cell to
create the group node that exited nonetheless. This is pure idiocy.
SR doesn't allow for group velocities greater than c, though it does
allow for transverse phase wave velocities greater than c. In the cesium
experiment you should note however that the group velocity is not
transverse, it is longitudinal.
SR has been proved by the experiment to be untenable.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "holog" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
19 Oct 2003 02:48:53 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper39.pdf
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper49.pdf
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated
wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable
faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going
on. If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always
particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of
probabilities. All quantum mechanists know the rules of adding
amplitudes but I would like to know if something new about quantum
mechanical tunneling has been revealed. Are individual photons in
these experiments moving at velocities faster than light?
Answer:
The sheer mention of this result together with Einstein's theory of
special relativity and the principle of causality is a scam. Not a
single photon is moving faster than light.
The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating
causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the
media hype is pure distortion. The fact that the dramatic 60 ns
advance is only one fiftieth of the width of the pulse is a clear
indication of this.
If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of
relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you.
It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion
faster than light.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Is there a real empirically confirmed theory of superluminal
velocities? No, not yet. But there is no evil in being able to
conceptualize such things.
Eugene Shubert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "holog" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
19 Oct 2003 02:53:38 PM |
|
|
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper39.pdf
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lwan/paper/paper49.pdf
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated
wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable
faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going
on. If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always
particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of
probabilities. All quantum mechanists know the rules of adding
amplitudes but I would like to know if something new about quantum
mechanical tunneling has been revealed. Are individual photons in
these experiments moving at velocities faster than light?
Answer:
The sheer mention of this result together with Einstein's theory of
special relativity and the principle of causality is a scam. Not a
single photon is moving faster than light.
The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating
causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the
media hype is pure distortion. The fact that the dramatic 60 ns
advance is only one fiftieth of the width of the pulse is a clear
indication of this.
If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of
relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you.
It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion
faster than light.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Is there a real empirically confirmed theory of superluminal
velocities? No, not yet. But there is no evil in being able to
conceptualize such things.
Eugene Shubert
Why do people think if you go faster than light you can immediately go
back in time?
i.e. if you could travel at twice the speed of light it would still take
two years to get to alpha centuri, right?
holog
.
|
|
|
| User: "J?rgen Clade" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
22 Oct 2003 03:28:33 AM |
|
|
Hello holog,
Why do people think if you go faster than light you can immediately go
back in time?
i.e. if you could travel at twice the speed of light it would still take
two years to get to alpha centuri, right?
That´s from the earth´s point of view. If you could travel to alpha
centauri at twice the speed of ligtht, the events "departure from
earth" and "arrival at alpha centauri" would be spacelike seperated
events. This means that their temporal sequence depends on the frame
of reference you choose. The violation of causality becomes obvious if
you immediately travel back from alpha centauri to earth, again at
twice the speed of light: Then your arrival on earth would be *before*
your departure from earth. SR avoids such violations of causality by
limiting the maximum speed at which you possibly can travel to the
speed of light.
regards,
Jürgen
.
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
22 Oct 2003 01:31:18 PM |
|
|
(J?rgen Clade) wrote in message news:<54bc2946.0310220028.3ddfff6f@posting.google.com>...
Hello holog,
Why do people think if you go faster than light you can immediately go
back in time?
i.e. if you could travel at twice the speed of light it would still take
two years to get to alpha centuri, right?
That´s from the earth´s point of view. If you could travel to alpha
centauri at twice the speed of ligtht, the events "departure from
earth" and "arrival at alpha centauri" would be spacelike seperated
events. This means that their temporal sequence depends on the frame
of reference you choose. The violation of causality becomes obvious if
you immediately travel back from alpha centauri to earth, again at
twice the speed of light: Then your arrival on earth would be *before*
your departure from earth. SR avoids such violations of causality by
limiting the maximum speed at which you possibly can travel to the
speed of light.
regards,
Jürgen
[EL]
Hi Jürgen,
I hope that you do not seriously believe in this chicken poop.
The distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri is a quantified
dimension of length that exists at once.
It is rather ridiculous to talk about a distance that shrinks in its
physical nature if an observer perceives it as shrunk.
Your perception may shrink indeed but the distance may not shrink and
if you do believe that poop then you do certainly need a shrink.
If the minimum distance is taken as a physical invariant then with a
constant velocity quantified in distance over time must take time by
simple division.
That time is a positive quantity that does not give a ***** to who is
assigning a sign to it and who is observing it.
SR takes no credit for the constancy of electromagnetic waves in
vacuum but Maxwell does.
SR takes credit to the waste of time and bandwidth and the chicken
poop you posted.
EL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
22 Oct 2003 01:56:02 PM |
|
|
"EL" <hemetis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.0310221031.3a32e476@posting.google.com...
[snip]
SR takes no credit for the constancy of electromagnetic waves in
vacuum but Maxwell does.
SR takes credit for modifying Newton and Galileo in a way
that satisfies Maxwell and all people who think that physics
is about experiments.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
22 Oct 2003 04:43:09 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6pAlb.98562$K_6.4644925@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"EL" <hemetis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.0310221031.3a32e476@posting.google.com...
[snip]
SR takes no credit for the constancy of electromagnetic waves in
vacuum but Maxwell does.
SR takes credit for modifying Newton and Galileo in a way
that satisfies Maxwell and all people who think that physics
is about experiments.
Dirk Vdm
[EL]
Pray tell Mr. de moortel.
Did the SR modification make Newton's apple fall upwards? :)
Then screwing the decent work of Galileo is called a virtue!
Satisfying Maxwell by plagiarising his results and screwing his ether!
Perhaps it is satisfying all people who think that physics is about
sex experiments such as screwing every decent theorem that existed
before and making crackpot lists for intimidating honourable and
credible professors by adding their names side by side with lunatics
and assholes of your type.
What a Dirk!
Be gone *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
22 Oct 2003 05:09:53 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6pAlb.98562$K_6.4644925@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"EL" <hemetis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.0310221031.3a32e476@posting.google.com...
[snip]
SR takes no credit for the constancy of electromagnetic waves in
vacuum but Maxwell does.
SR takes credit for modifying Newton and Galileo in a way
that satisfies Maxwell and all people who think that physics
is about experiments.
Dirk Vdm
[EL]
The first postulate of SR is plagiarized from the Galilean
transformation postulate.
The second Postulate is plagiarized from Maxwell's constancy of light
speed in vacuum.
Observers are irrelevant to both postulates.
Lorentz transformation and the gamma factor are idiotic manipulations
of invariant dimensions.
Ah! And you are an ***** and it is not a pleasure to communicate
with you after demonstrating your bias and disrespect.
Be gone.
EL
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J?rgen Clade" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
23 Oct 2003 08:38:08 AM |
|
|
EL,
...chicken poop.
...*****...chicken
poop
Is this your usual way of discussing? You should not only learn some
physics, but also some manners.
regards,
Jürgen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
23 Oct 2003 09:21:05 AM |
|
|
"J?rgen Clade" <clade@isc.fhg.de> wrote in message news:54bc2946.0310230538.1d392575@posting.google.com...
EL,
...chicken poop.
...*****...chicken
poop
Is this your usual way of discussing? You should not only learn some
physics, but also some manners.
Impossible.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndersenLogic.html
Look at the "interesting follow-ups" at the bottom ;-)
Enjoy...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
23 Oct 2003 11:16:58 AM |
|
|
"J?rgen Clade" <clade@isc.fhg.de> wrote in message news:54bc2946.0310230538.1d392575@posting.google.com...
EL,
...chicken poop.
...*****...chicken
poop
Is this your usual way of discussing? You should not only learn some
physics, but also some manners.
[possibly posted twice - sorry, news server problem]
Impossible.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndersenLogic.html
Look at the "interesting follow-ups" at the bottom ;-)
Enjoy...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
23 Oct 2003 01:15:15 PM |
|
|
(J?rgen Clade) wrote in message news:<54bc2946.0310230538.1d392575@posting.google.com>...
EL,
...chicken poop.
...*****...chicken
poop
Is this your usual way of discussing? You should not only learn some
physics, but also some manners.
regards,
Jürgen
[EL]
Are you accusing me of not recognising chicken ***** when I see it?
Then who do you suggest can teach me physics if you all seem to be
chicken that has no freaking idea about any physics else than
excreting *****.?
If you had had the knowledge required to teach a professor then
certainly I do have the manner with which I should address such a
master.
I am really sorry to have offended you, and I never meant to offend
you in retaliation to being offended by your post.
Most probably you did not intentionally mean to offend me except that
there is nothing you can do about yourself being offensive.
Try posting science and I shall show you elite manners.
Post the same chicken ***** you posted and I shall identify it on the
spot.
EL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
27 Oct 2003 08:14:38 AM |
|
|
In article <7563cb80.0310231015.2cc1ff6f@posting.google.com>,
I am really sorry to have offended you, and I never meant to offend
you in retaliation to being offended by your post.
Most probably you did not intentionally mean to offend me except that
there is nothing you can do about yourself being offensive.
Try posting science and I shall show you elite manners.
Post the same chicken ***** you posted and I shall identify it on the
spot.
EL
bwaahaha. this is excellent. I can't tell from the post if EL is the
kook or if EL is responding to the kook, but either way, excellent
rant.
--- edt
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ueb" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
25 Oct 2003 08:33:46 AM |
|
|
J\"urgen Clade wrote:
EL,
...chicken poop.
...*****...chicken
poop
Is this your usual way of discussing? You should not only learn some
physics, but also some manners.
Don't let irritate, if this man leaves some farts. He is only a chemist,
but he sees more than lots of paid physicists. See also
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/article2.txt
(Reading that, you may better understand the subject of this thread.)
Regards
Ulrich Bruchholz
.
|
|
|
| User: "EL" |
|
| Title: Re: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities? |
25 Oct 2003 03:08:14 PM |
|
|
[EL]
Thank you dear Ulrich, I know myself that I am an old ranting fart,
but I still appreciate your testimony. :)
ueb <Ulrich.Bruchholz@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<q3udnb.fa.ln@Muse2.private.de>...
J\"urgen Clade wrote:
EL,
...chicken poop.
...*****...chicken
poop
Is this your usual way of discussing? You should not only learn some
physics, but also some manners.
Don't let irritate, if this man leaves some farts. He is only a chemist,
but he sees more than lots of paid physicists. See also
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/article2.txt
(Reading that, you may better understand the subject of this thread.)
Regards
Ulrich Bruchholz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
